Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

The Secretary of State was asked—

Hydrogen Energy

James Davies: What steps his Department is taking to support the development of hydrogen energy.

Duncan Baker: What steps his Department is taking to support the development of hydrogen energy.

Alok Sharma: Both the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan and our energy White Paper, which we published yesterday, set out our bold ambition for the UK to be a world leader in low-carbon hydrogen. As set out in the White Paper, we are determined to make tangible progress in this important sector, including by investing £240 million through the net zero hydrogen fund and supporting industry to begin a hydrogen heating trial in an entire neighbourhood by 2023. We will publish a comprehensive hydrogen strategy early next year.

James Davies: The development of hydrogen energy can lead to thousands of new jobs UK-wide, including an estimated 6,000 in my region through the HyNet project. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to help HyNet access industrial decarbonisation challenge funding to allow it to progress?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is all about jobs—high value-added jobs. He, along with other colleagues in the House, makes the case at every opportunity for the HyNet project, and it is very lucky to have him as a champion. As he will know, HyNet has already received funding through phase 1 of the industrial decarbonisation challenge, as well as £13 million of support through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy energy innovation programme. We will announce the winners of the next phase of the industrial decarbonisation challenge in spring next year.

Duncan Baker: Bacton gas terminal in my constituency harbours a significant percentage of the natural gas intake into the UK. What assessment has my right  hon. Friend made of the potential opportunities presented for the manufacture of blue hydrogen at Bacton, creating low-carbon jobs for the east of England?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend again raises the issue of jobs. Of course, creating these low-carbon jobs across the country is a priority for the Government. As I have set out, in our 10-point plan and the energy White Paper we have put forward policies for the creation of a significant number of jobs. The Oil and Gas Authority is currently conducting an in-depth feasibility study into blue hydrogen at the Bacton gas terminal. I very much welcome that work, and my officials and, indeed, Ministers would be very happy to engage further with my hon. Friend on this matter.

Alan Whitehead: I am pleased to see that the net zero hydrogen fund that the Secretary of State just mentioned will support, among other things, the production of hydrogen. Will he commit today to using that fund to prioritise the production of green hydrogen, as opposed to blue hydrogen, in the future?

Alok Sharma: We will have to look at what bids come in in respect of how that funding is used, but I say again—I made this point yesterday at the Dispatch Box—that it is not just public money; we are also talking about private sector money coming alongside it. The hon. Gentleman will know that Hydrogen Strategy Now, a campaign group of more than 50 companies, has said that it is ready to invest £3 billion in hydrogen projects, and that was after the publication of the 10-point plan.

Low-Carbon Industries: Employment Growth

Peter Aldous: What steps his Department is taking to support employment growth in low-carbon industries.

Alok Sharma: Our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, which we set out last month, has an ambition to support 250,000 highly skilled green jobs across the UK by 2030. The plans we published yesterday in the energy White Paper will further position the UK as a global leader in the future energy industry, not least by supporting the development of jobs and green infrastructure in low-carbon energy such as hydrogen, carbon capture, usage and storage, and of course nuclear.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. The scale of the opportunity for employment growth in low-carbon industries is immense. If the right approach is adopted, there can be enormous benefits to coastal communities such as Lowestoft and Waveney. How does the Secretary of State intend to transform the UK’s approach to energy skills in order to capitalise on these great opportunities?

Alok Sharma: Once again, a Conservative colleague talks about jobs, which is what the energy White Paper and the 10-point plan are all about. My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for offshore wind, and for jobs and growth, in supporting his constituency. He will know that we have set up the green jobs taskforce, which was launched in November and is led by the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, my right hon.  Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). The taskforce brings together businesses and trade unions to assess how our jobs and skills should adapt to allow us to build back greener, and how the Government can support people in transitioning industries.

Covid-19: Hospitality

James Daly: What steps his Department is taking to support hospitality businesses in areas under tier 3 covid-19 restrictions.

Paul Scully: I commend my hon. Friend for his work as the voice of the hospitality sector in Bury and the surrounding area. The Government have provided an unprecedented package of support to hospitality businesses, including almost £10 billion in rates relief. Those under tier 3 may be eligible for a local restrictions support grant of up to £3,000 per month and the additional restrictions grant.

James Daly: Hospitality businesses in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington have spent thousands of pounds to make their premises covid-secure. If Bury remains in tier 3 during the Christmas period, many of those businesses will face financial ruin. Will my hon. Friend therefore work with the Treasury to ensure that adequate financial support is given to those otherwise viable businesses? If we do not act now, these important community assets will be lost forever, with the devastating loss of thousands of jobs. Please save our pubs.

Paul Scully: I am grateful to all the hospitality businesses across the country, including in Bury, that have done so much work to become covid-secure. I am in contact with Treasury colleagues who know that businesses need support in those higher tiers, and that is why we are giving additional support for wet-led pubs worth up to £40 million in grants.

Covid-19: Support for the Self-employed

Wendy Chamberlain: What steps he is taking to support the self-employed during the covid-19 outbreak.

Paul Scully: The Government have already paid £13.5 billion through the self-employment income support scheme. In November, we announced an increase in the overall level of the SEISS grant, equivalent to an additional £7.3 billion of support to the self-employed through November to January alone. This scheme is among the most generous in the world.

Wendy Chamberlain: As the pandemic continues, the flaws of the original self-employment income support scheme have become clear. One of my constituents lost out on thousands of pounds in a potential grant because, for the best part of the year in 2019, he was injured, unable to work and therefore could not evidence his usual income. When the pandemic started, we all appreciated the fact that these schemes were put into place very quickly to provide support, but in the months since, there has not even been recognition. Does the  Minister agree that now is the time to look back at schemes to ensure that those who are excluded are supported, too?

Paul Scully: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We will always look for and listen to suggestions on how we can improve schemes, and I will continue to work with Treasury colleagues to reflect that.

Covid-19: Effect on Business

Emma Lewell-Buck: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of tiered covid-19 public health restrictions on businesses’ ability to trade.

Alex Norris: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of tiered covid-19 public health restrictions on businesses’ ability to trade.

Kwasi Kwarteng: We know that certain areas of the economy have faced enormous challenges this year, and that is why the Government have provided an unprecedented range of support packages to help businesses precisely to continue trading.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Wet pubs in South Shields spent money making themselves covid-secure, only to have an arbitrary curfew imposed on them and then to be forced to close completely, yet there is no evidence at all that they are contributing to the spread of the virus. This was a policy, not a health decision. I heard the Minister’s earlier response, but if the Government really do not want to see our pub doors closed forever, why have they not listened to the requests from the British Beer and Pub Association and uplifted the current grants on offer?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), has suggested, there is a considerable measure of support for pubs that are suffering at the moment. And as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said, there is a clear medical, epidemiological reason for pursuing the policies that we have done.

Alex Norris: In a letter to the Prime Minister, the BBPA said that the so-called support for pubs and brewers in the winter plan was met with “utter dismay and incredulity” among publicans. Many hostelry businesses crucial to life in Nottingham and across the country are not going to survive the winter with what is currently on offer. When is the Minister going to come forward with proper support?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We are in constant dialogue with the pub industry and many people—publicans—certainly in my constituency, who have spoken to me are grateful for the measure of support. We are in constant dialogue, but they are grateful for the measure of support that has been supplied.

Climate Action

John Lamont: What steps he is taking to promote climate action ahead of the COP26 summit.

Alok Sharma: As conference of the parties president, I have held bilateral meetings with over 40 countries and spoken at around 50 international events over the past months. Throughout, I have called for world leaders to be as ambitious as possible with the climate action targets. The UK is showing real leadership in this area. On 4 December, we announced our new, ambitious nationally determined contribution and on 12 December, we co-hosted the Climate Ambition Summit, which saw 75 world leaders coming forward with 45 NDCs, 24 net zero commitments and 20 adaptation resilience plans.

John Lamont: The eyes of the world will be on Glasgow next year as the UK hosts the UN Climate Change Conference. This is a huge moment in our fight to stop climate change, so how will the UK Government engage with schools in Scotland and across the whole United Kingdom to promote this important event?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is right: it is going to be a big moment for the UK in Glasgow next year and, of course, in the lead-up to it as well. I have been very encouraged and impressed by the commitment that young people are showing in tackling climate change. They have a vital part to play in ensuring that we deliver an inclusive and diverse COP26. In the run-up to the summit, we will be working closely with schools and young people, including by co-hosting the COP youth event, which will bring together 400 youth delegates from around the world to discuss a range of climate topics.

Matthew Pennycook: According to Climate Action Tracker, the national net zero pledges that have been put forward today could, if achieved across the board, limit global heating to around 2.1°, but in terms of actual policies, the world remains on course for catastrophic warming of over 3°. Given the gulf between what Governments, including this Government, have promised on climate action and what they are on course to achieve, does the Secretary of State agree that it is incumbent on the UK as COP26 host to demonstrate to the world that it actually has a plan to deliver net zero? If he does agree, will he assure the House that the Government will publish a comprehensive and fully costed net zero strategy well in advance of November next year?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I said that at the climate ambition summit. Leaders from around the world have come forward with ambitions, but we absolutely need to go further. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think there is consensus on it in the House. With regard to his question on a net zero strategy, of course we will publish one. I also just want to make the point that, when we were talking about clean energy and hydrogen earlier, I stated that the Hydrogen Strategy Now group made a commitment on the £3 billion after the 10-point plan, but in fact it came before that.

UK Internal Market Bill: Devolved Administrations

Gavin Newlands: What recent discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

Patrick Grady: What recent discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

Paul Scully: The Government have sought to engage constructively with the devolved Administrations throughout the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The recent fruits of that continuing commitment include several amendments tabled by the Government strengthening a role for the devolved Administrations.

Gavin Newlands: Of course, Rolls-Royce operates its own internal market in which plant is often set against plant, but more and more it relies on third-party suppliers rather than on in-house manufacture. Inchinnan has already seen some 700 jobs go, and despite favourable production stats, we now know that there will be further redundancies, with the aero shafts line closing and work being transferred to Derby, as well as other UK Rolls-Royce jobs being offshored to Spain. The Scottish Government’s Rolls-Royce working group was set up to protect jobs at Inchinnan. If the Government’s power-grabbing Bill is passed, will the Minister ensure that the Government will work with the Scottish Government to protect Scottish Rolls-Royce jobs?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman talks about grabbing powers back, but Scotland will be gaining powers in more than 100 areas that are at the moment controlled by the EU. Of course we will continue to work with important industries such as the aerospace sector and with companies such as Rolls-Royce to protect jobs.

Patrick Grady: Those of us who are paying attention will have seen that the House of Lords has passed amendments to the UKIM Bill to try to salvage what might be left of the devolution settlement, which the Government have explicitly rejected. If Members look at the Order Paper, they will see that it states:
“The Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru have each decided not to approve a Legislative Consent Motion relating to this Bill.”
How is this respecting the devolution settlement? This Government legislated to protect Sewel on statute, but now they are riding roughshod all over it.

Paul Scully: The Sewel convention envisages situations such as this, where the UK Parliament may need to legislate without consent. We regret the fact that the Scottish Parliament has chosen to do that, but the Bill is essential for protecting businesses and citizens across Scotland, and across the whole of the UK, as the transition period ends.

Drew Hendry: Since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, Scottish productivity has rocketed by more than a third, way above the 24% for the UK as a whole. Our Parliament has been a gift to business, whether under Scottish National party or Labour and Liberal Governments. This Bill extends Westminster’s  bony hand into the control of devolved spending across health, food safety, the environment and much more. Is it too late for a festive miracle, with a Tory Minister actually listening to the wise men and women across Scottish society, industry, organisations and law and in Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament and Government, and scrapping this assault on Scotland’s democracy and business productivity?

Paul Scully: Spending powers in the UK internal market are in addition to the spending that the Scottish Government already make. These are issues that have up to now been dealt with by the EU, and we will continue to work with the devolved Administrations throughout this process.

Drew Hendry: The Minister talks about spending powers. This Bill allows UK Ministers to control spending in the devolved areas of economic development, infrastructure, cultural activities, regional development, education, water, power, gas, telecoms, railways, health, housing and justice. Given the track record of the Tories, for Scotland this really is the nightmare before Christmas. Can he see why, after 16 opinion polls in a row, Scottish people do not want his rotten gifts but instead are looking to protect their Parliament and their rights through Scotland becoming a normal independent nation?

Paul Scully: I regret that the Scottish Government have not continued their discussions with the UK Government about an internal market Bill specifically, whereas they have continued them on the common frameworks. On the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, we have made amendments in the other place that reflect conversations with the Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly. I just wish the Scottish Government would come back with productive conversations so that we can push this through and give certainty for business.

Covid-19: Support for Businesses

Harriett Baldwin: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Paul Holmes: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Joy Morrissey: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Nadhim Zahawi: My Department continues to deliver a wide range of measures to support UK businesses. We have extended our loan schemes, which have already delivered more than £65 billion of finance, until the end of January.

Harriett Baldwin: That level of support is impressive, and I also thank the Minister for all he is doing on the vaccine roll-out. There are sections of the UK economy that are going to grow rapidly, not least the green industrial revolution, thanks to the energy White Paper announced yesterday. What steps is he taking to make  sure that it is UK-based businesses that grow the workforce and benefit from the job creation as a result of the green industrial revolution?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her excellent question. The 10-point plan will build on the nearly half a million green jobs that already exist in the UK economy, supporting up to 250,000 further high-skilled jobs. The House will be interested to know that we are talking about 60,000 in offshore wind, 10,000 or more in nuclear, 50,000 in green and comfortable homes, 8,000 in hydrogen, 53,000 in carbon capture utilisation and storage and 40,000 in accelerating the shift to zero-emission vehicles.

Paul Holmes: The weekend before last, I was pleased finally to start my Christmas shopping in Botley High Street, as part of Small Business Saturday, which included visiting Wardrobe at 24 and Mermaids deli. This crucial campaign highlights the important role that businesses and entrepreneurs play. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever to support our high streets and shop local this Christmas? Will he assure me that this Government will continue to stand by our town centres and high streets as we recover from covid?

Nadhim Zahawi: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; now more than ever it is vital that we continue to help our local economy by supporting our town centres and high streets. That is why we have delivered one of the most generous comprehensive packages of support, with a total financial package of £200 billion.

Joy Morrissey: Does my hon. Friend agree on what a success the recent Small Business Saturday events were and on how important small businesses are to local communities across my constituency in Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and Marlow? Does he agree that we must continue to fight for small businesses during this pandemic, so that we do not risk undermining the economic foundation of our country?

Nadhim Zahawi: The recent Small Business Saturday event meant that the spend from the Great British public rose to £1.1 billion this year, which is a 38% rise on last year. The Government will continue to champion small businesses, through our unprecedented support schemes, as they begin to recover from the impact of covid-19. As the Secretary of State has just reminded me, the spend is not £200 billion—it is £280 billion of support for small business.

Chi Onwurah: Of the £5 billion of new online spend because of the pandemic, 40% has gone to one website, Amazon. Many small businesses are afraid that they will not make it through the winter because of a lack of Government support, and they have Brexit and climate and technological change to deal with too. So I want to ask the Minister this: what is the plan for small businesses to survive covid and build back smarter and greener? I am talking not about vague promises, but about firm commitments to help businesses invest in new technologies, as Make UK has called for, or to target procurement to support net zero businesses, as the Institution of Civil Engineers proposes. Or are the Government just going to let business down again?

Nadhim Zahawi: As a fellow engineer, the hon. Lady will know that the Made Smarter initiative has been a tremendous pilot in the north-west. We recently announced a further expansion, with £300 million—£147 million coming from the Government and the balance coming from the private sector—to support the adoption of technology into manufacturing. I hope the hon. Lady will continue to support Government initiatives such as Made Smarter.

Green Homes Grant

Andrew Rosindell: What steps he is taking to ensure that the Green Homes Grant scheme delivers (a) value for money and (b) environmental benefits.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The Prime Minister has made it clear that energy efficiency is a top Government priority. The green homes grant provides economic stimulus, supporting more than 80,000 jobs, and through it households could save up to £600 a year on energy bills.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for his answer, but will he explain what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of individual products when deciding what to include in the green homes grant scheme, and why solar thermal systems are included but not solar PV panels, which are not only more cost-effective but much better for the environment?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As my hon. Friend will know, the list of technologies currently included reflects the Department’s assessment of the best balance between economic stimulus and maximising value for householders and taxpayers. In respect of solar PV, the particular emphasis in the green homes grant was on the energy efficiency of homes and not necessarily on electrification per se or the use of electricity.

Hydrogen Energy

Chris Matheson: What steps the Government have taken to support the introduction of hydrogen energy networks in the UK.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The 10-point plan set out a comprehensive package to underpin our ambition for  5 GW of hydrogen production capacity by 2030. We have also announced a £240 million net zero housing fund and will publish a UK hydrogen strategy next year.

Chris Matheson: The GMB union has pointed out that one of the simple benefits of the hydrogen strategy is that there is an existing gas network with 24 million homes connected to it, and thousands of jobs can be retained without any retraining schemes. When the Minister brings forward his hydrogen strategy next year, will he bear in mind that the HyNet system in the north-west will be able to deliver 80% of the entire UK target of 5 GW by 2030? Will he resist the temptation, which I mentioned to the Secretary of State yesterday, to play one region off against another, and perhaps increase the amount of money so that we can all share in the benefits?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The whole point of a hydrogen strategy is to dovetail nicely with the levelling-up agenda. I know many of the people in the HyNet cluster, which is an excellent cluster doing great work. We hope that those benefits and that innovation can be spread throughout the country and create opportunity the width and breadth of our country.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Bob Blackman: What recent progress he has made on the (a) development and (b) introduction of small modular nuclear reactors.

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend will know that small modular reactor technology is very much at the centre of what the Prime Minister outlined in the 10-point plan; in fact, the nuclear segment of that plan was the third item on the agenda and is extremely important. SMRs will certainly play a part in our nuclear future.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us land the next question from Bob Blackman.

Bob Blackman: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister rightly says, small modular nuclear reactors can be developed quickly and provide green energy at very low costs. They can also be located at a range of sites throughout the UK to enable easy connection to the national grid. Will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals to accelerate the roll-out of this exciting new opportunity to provide clean energy and create more employment in the UK, putting us ahead of the rest of the world?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that SMRs represent a huge opportunity for precisely the reasons he gives: they are flexible and one can operate them in lots of geographical areas. Next year, we will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the siting requirements for SMRs and advanced modular reactors so that we can develop this exciting technology.

Covid-19: Green Economic Recovery

Ben Bradley: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure a green economic recovery from the covid-19 outbreak.

Amanda Solloway: We are delivering on our ambitious commitment to build back greener from covid-19. The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution will be instrumental, creating long-term advantages for the UK in low-carbon industries and supporting up to a quarter of a million green jobs while continuing to drive down our emissions.

Ben Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that, in the long term, the green element of this plan will be hugely important for our whole country, but in the short term, in the current economic climate, I know that many of my constituents will be focused on job creation and employment. Can she assure me that these investments will create opportunities for the most left behind parts of this country, and tell me how my constituents in Mansfield will directly benefit from that investment?

Amanda Solloway: The 10-point plan is crucial to a part of the Prime Minister’s mission to level up the country and to revitalise the towns and regions of places such as the east midlands, from where my hon. Friend and I hail, and which is also the birthplace of the first industrial revolution. I can tell him that green recovery will support highly skilled jobs in towns such as Mansfield across a range of green industries from electric vehicle technicians to those installing low-carbon heating to make our homes warmer and fitter for the future.

Renewable Energy: Capacity

Caroline Ansell: What steps his Department is taking to increase the capacity of renewable energy in the UK.

Mick Whitley: What steps he is taking to develop the renewable energy sector in the UK.

Amanda Solloway: The UK is a world leader in offshore wind and proud to be the home of the world’s largest offshore wind farm. That is why we have increased our target to deliver 40 GW of offshore wind, quadrupling capacity by 2030, and announced £160 million to support ports and infrastructure enabling the sector to support up to 60,000 jobs.

Caroline Ansell: Off the Sussex coast, the Rampion wind farm has plans to triple its output. It is already powering local homes, but it could also be key to developing green hydrogen to power heavy transport, including buses. Does my hon. Friend agree that this technology needs to be scaled up and at pace, and what support is being given by her Department to bring partners together to deliver this green hydrogen fuel across the network so that places such as my home town of Eastbourne can see an improvement in its air quality and meet its 2030 carbon neutral ambition?

Amanda Solloway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Green hydrogen, coupled with our abundant offshore wind resources, could play a vital role in decarbonising crucial parts of the economy, including heavy transport. The energy White Paper sets out our ambition for 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. The £23 million hydrogen for transport programme has already helped grow the number of publicly accessible hydrogen refuelling stations across the UK.

Mick Whitley: The tidal energy industry has a hugely important role to play in meeting increased demand for electricity and achieving net zero carbon emissions. The Mersey tidal project has the potential to transform Merseyside, generating enough power for 1 million homes across the north-west, while creating thousands of jobs and positioning our region as a world leader in tidal energy. What practical steps are the Government taking in the immediate term to support the development of this much needed project?

Amanda Solloway: I thank the hon. Member for his question. The Government have funded the north-west energy hub to develop renewable opportunities in the region and are open to considering well-developed proposals  with strongly demonstratable value for money and for the environment. He will also know that our officials have been in communication with the Mersey tidal power team, and I ask that they continue their engagement.

Employers: Dismiss and Re-engage Tactics

Mike Amesbury: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the use of dismiss and re-engage tactics by employers.

Paul Scully: The Government appreciate the difficulties that many people are currently facing and are sympathetic to those who are worried about their jobs. We are clear that using threats about firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic is unacceptable. However, businesses in real financial difficulty need flexibility to offer new terms and conditions in order to save as many jobs as they can.

Mike Amesbury: First it was British Airways, and now British Gas/Centrica has threatened thousands of employees with fire and rehire tactics, including a number of my constituents, such as Wayne and Paul. These people have many decades of experience working for these British companies and our society. Will the Minister join me in condemning the company’s actions? What action is the Department taking to ensure that these deplorable approaches are dealt with? Write to them.

Paul Scully: It is not acceptable for employers to use unacceptable negotiating tactics, including fire and rehire. I understand that it is a difficult situation for employees to find themselves in. There are commercial matters between employers and employees, but we expect employers to treat their staff in the spirit of partnership. In the vast majority of cases—unlike the ones that have just been outlined—employers do want to do the right thing, and there are processes in place to prevent abuse.

Andy McDonald: Heathrow, British Airways and British Gas—all flagship companies—have used abusive fire and rehire tactics to cut the pay and conditions of their loyal work forces. Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick is home of the jet engine and the battle of Britain aircraft. Hundreds of staff there are being made redundant and their jobs offshored to Singapore, Spain and Japan. These iconic companies have received billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash, so why did the Government not make retaining jobs a condition of this financial help? Does the Minister recognise that by providing no-strings-attached support, the Government have facilitated UK jobs being either downgraded or moved out of the country at the taxpayers’ expense?

Paul Scully: We have worked with and supported the aviation sector in a number of different ways. We have also made it really clear that when companies want to make redundancies, they should follow the correct consultation process. It is important that we get the balance right to protect jobs for those companies.

Covid-19: Hospitality

Rosie Cooper: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of covid-19 financial relief in supporting growth in the hospitality sector.

Paul Scully: We have engaged with businesses to understand their needs at this challenging time. We are providing an unprecedented support package, including an extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme until 31 March 2021, grants, loans, rates relief and a VAT cut.

Rosie Cooper: Many plumbers, electricians and other self-employed people, including sole traders, have been left out of Government support. What can the Minister say to people who have worked hard all their lives and paid their taxes, and have seen their businesses collapse through no fault of their own? This includes the hospitality sector. Can the Government commit to providing further support, as local publicans in my area say that the tiny grant they got does not even get close to covering their overheads?

Paul Scully: I was self-employed, running companies, for most of the 25 years that I was working before I was elected to this place; there but for the grace of God go I. I will continue to reflect the views of the self-employed in conversations with the Treasury. I also speak to the hospitality sector every single week and will be doing so later today. We have allocated £40 million extra to wet-led pubs, in addition to extending the moratorium on rent evictions and legal processes facing tenants, the VAT cut and the business rates relief.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Imports and Exports

Bill Esterson: What assessment he has made of the level of greenhouse gas emissions generated by (a) imports to and (b) exports from the UK.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The Government publish estimates of consumption emissions every year. The latest figures show that UK emissions on a consumption basis fell by nearly 25% between 2007 and last year.

Bill Esterson: When emissions from the production of imports, and from sea and air transport are included—minus those of exports—the UK has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 0.6% a year, not the 1.5% that the Government quote for territorial emissions alone. This country depends on imports, including the emissions that they produce. Ministers can kid themselves all they like, but is it not the case that unless the UK cuts the emissions that we are responsible for around the world, we are not going to make the contribution that we need to in order to deal with the climate emergency?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we do have to take into account the carbon emissions that we are responsible for through trade, but he will also recognise that this is part of an international movement. There is no country in the world, in the EU as well, that is properly accounting for carbon emissions in this way. I point out to him that we were the first G20 country to mandate disclosures under the TCFD—Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures—framework across the economy, and we are leaders in terms of carbon accounting.

Review of Alcohol Duty

Jim Shannon: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government’s proposed review of alcohol duty; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Scully: We are in regular contact with the Chancellor on measures to support hospitality businesses. The alcohol duty review aims to improve the current system to make it simpler, more economically rational, and less administratively burdensome on businesses and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response, but can he outline what steps have been taken to address the binge culture, which has been enhanced by supermarket offers, especially in these times when we all need to have our wits about us?

Paul Scully: We looked at the curfew, for example, when there were stories coming back to us about people coming out of pubs and going straight into supermarkets to buy more drinks. That was an unintended consequence, so it is good that we reviewed that and changed it. The alcohol duty review will take into account the balance between supermarkets and hospitality.

Covid-19: Support for Business

Chris Loder: What steps he is taking to support small businesses in areas under tier 2 covid-19 restrictions.

Grahame Morris: What assessment he has made of the availability of the local restrictions support grant (open) to businesses in areas under tier 2 covid-19 restrictions.

Nadhim Zahawi: Businesses in tier 2 that are required to close can access payments of up to £1,500 per 14 days of closure. We are giving additional financial support of £1.1 billion to local authorities to support other businesses severely affected by restrictions even though open.

Chris Loder: May I gently suggest to the Minister that one of the best ways he will be able to support small businesses in my constituency of West Dorset is to use his influence in discussions within Government tomorrow to reduce West Dorset from tier 2 to tier 1? In the event of that not being possible, could he outline more specifically what the Government will be doing to support the 97% of businesses that are small or micro-sized?

Nadhim Zahawi: I recognise that the winter months will continue to be extremely tough on many businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I am confident that the grant programme that we have in place, alongside other measures like the job retention scheme and the support for the self-employed that have been so widely discussed this morning, will continue to deliver that support. An estimated 90% of small and medium-sized business premises in closed retail, hospitality and leisure sectors should, broadly, have their monthly rent covered by the business grant programme.

Grahame Morris: It is essential that the local restrictions support grant is available promptly to businesses and is not subject to a prolonged application process. In anticipation of some areas—hopefully my own in the north-east—moving into tier 2 this week, will the Secretary of State ensure that grants are paid quickly to businesses, including the retrospective grants, particularly to pubs?

Nadhim Zahawi: The local restrictions support grants, additional restriction grants and Christmas support payments are all available now for businesses through their local authority. I know that the Secretary of State takes these businesses very seriously. Throughout this whole process, since back in March, he made sure that all his Ministers talked to local government to make sure that we do get those payments out promptly.

Life Sciences Sector

Chris Green: What steps his Department is taking to support the life sciences sector.

Nadhim Zahawi: The Government have invested approximately £1 billion through two life sciences sector deals, helping to generate significant industry investment in the UK. Last year the industry had a turnover in the UK of £80.7 billion.

Chris Green: The life sciences sector is a truly international endeavour, as can be so clearly seen with the recent vaccine research efforts. With worries in the sector about our ongoing relationship with European countries and the European Union, would my hon. Friend confirm that the concerns of the life sciences sector are of paramount importance in the ongoing negotiations?

Nadhim Zahawi: Clearly, the UK’s relationship with the EU is subject to ongoing negotiations, but as we leave the EU the life sciences sector will be supported through the life sciences sector deals that I mentioned, and a new, innovative regulatory framework. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has proven itself globally to be one of the finest regulators in the world, and new international regulatory collaborations are on the way too.

Green Deal Loans: Mis-selling

Anne McLaughlin: What steps his Department is taking to support people who were mis-sold a Green Deal loan more than six years ago.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady will be aware that too many people have suffered from mis-selling by a small number of green deal providers. We are doing all we can to provide redress where appropriate, as enabled by the green deal regulations.

Anne McLaughlin: If someone is mis-sold something, there is a six-year time bar to get redress, unless they were not aware of it at the time, in which case they have three more years from when they became aware. There is a significant number of victims of green deal mis-selling, many of whom were very elderly and thought they must have misunderstood, but they did not; they were duped. Why are they, after all they have been through, being denied that extra three-year rule and access to justice?

Kwasi Kwarteng: It is correct that a complaint must be made within six years of the date of the breach, as we would expect mis-selling to become evident within six years, but we have to take everything, as the hon. Lady knows, on a case-by-case basis. We will explore the relevant facts of each case, and then we can work out whether an eligible complaint can be made within the relevant timeframe. I am very happy to meet her individually to discuss cases as they arise, because we have to take each on a case-by-case basis.

Topical Questions

Jeff Smith: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alok Sharma: At this last Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy oral questions of the year, I take this opportunity to thank my brilliant ministerial team, our brilliant Parliamentary Private Secretaries, our fabulous Whip and the outstanding civil servants for the huge effort they have made this year to support business and procure 357 million doses of the most promising vaccine candidates.
Since the previous oral questions last month, the Department has led on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, which is our blueprint for a green industrial revolution, and the energy White Paper. We have also been central in setting the UK’s ambitious nationally determined contribution, as well as helping to organise the climate ambition summit on 12 December. The pace and energy of delivery will continue in the new year, because our businesses and people across the United Kingdom deserve no less at this challenging time.

Jeff Smith: Rate relief for hospitality venues is welcome, but many are racking up huge rent debts while they are closed and getting only a third of the support they got earlier in the year. Have the Government had any discussions about a model of sharing the rental debt burden among tenants, landlords, banks and the Government, because without more help, many of these businesses will close?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and of course we have dialogues with landlords and tenants. As he will have heard, the rent moratorium has been extended to 31 March, and he will also know that because the rates holiday continues, that is money that does not have to go out, which can be used for other purposes.

Cherilyn Mackrory: The Government are leading the way with the green revolution, and in Cornwall we are teeming with green potential. Will my right hon. Friend work with my Cornish colleagues and I to help put Cornwall at the heart of the green industry, unleashing geothermal energy, lithium, floating offshore wind and their vital supply chains, creating long-lasting jobs in Cornwall?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend and I have had a number of conversations about the green industrial revolution. I am very excited about the opportunities in  her wonderful county, and I look forward to visiting, when restrictions permit me, some of these wonderful projects.

Ed Miliband: Businesses face a double whammy from the ongoing economic crisis and potential Brexit disruption. They want the Business Secretary to stand up for them. Some 61% of the country will be in tier 3 from tomorrow, and the situation for many pubs, restaurants and bars is catastrophic, as this morning’s record redundancy figures show. Will the Secretary of State now finally recognise what he has been told repeatedly by Members across the House—and again today—and by industry that support for the hospitality sector is hopelessly inadequate if many of these businesses are to survive through the winter?

Alok Sharma: I completely accept that it is a very difficult time for lots of businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector right now, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, support is being provided. Businesses that are required to be closed can get grants of up to £3,000 a month. I also point him in the direction of the International Monetary Fund, which said that the support the UK Government are providing is
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.

Ed Miliband: I am afraid that the Secretary of State is failing to stand up for the hospitality sector. Let us talk about the 150,000 businesses that, even with a trade deal, will have to fill in customs forms for the first time from 1 January. The ports are struggling, the IT systems are not ready, the customs agents are not in place, and businesses still do not know the rules that will exist in just 16 days’ time. Are these firms not entitled to conclude that they are being badly let down by a Government who have left them totally in the lurch and a Business Secretary who seems asleep at the wheel?

Alok Sharma: I will refrain from coming back on that jibe. As a Government, we have been working incredibly hard to support businesses. I know that it is very difficult. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the end of the transition period. Of course, there are a lot of changes that businesses can already put in place and, as he knows, we are communicating with businesses to ensure that that happens. I think that businesses do want us to continue talking to the European Union, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Nigel Mills: Last week Swanwick Hayes conference centre in my constituency was forced to make redundancies, having had practically no turnover since March. Is there more that we can do to support the events industry, which may face many more months before it can start earning anything like its normal levels?

Alok Sharma: As my hon. Friend knows, we are providing support. It is difficult for a lot of businesses right now. The furlough scheme has been extended until the end of March, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with the sector, as is the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).

Mohammad Yasin: My constituent Mark, a publisher, sells 60% of his specialist books outside the UK. He wrote to me to say that the prospect of Brexit is bad enough for business, but the increased costs to post overseas could be the nail in the coffin for his business and many SME exporters. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Royal Mail about recent price hikes, and can he tell my constituent when the temporary air carrier surcharge will end?

Alok Sharma: We are in regular dialogue with Royal Mail and others. I am happy to take up the point that the hon. Gentleman raised separately, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who is responsible for Royal Mail, will be happy to follow up with him.

Mark Jenkinson: My right hon. Friend might have seen me pushing the Prime Minister to support a 26-hectare renewable energy manufacturing facility at Oldside in the port of Workington. There is potentially around 100 hectares available. Does he agree that, alongside the larger sites of over 200 hectares, we need a number of smaller sites around the coast with good access to road, rail and sea routes, such as our offer in Workington?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend is right to say that renewable energy manufacturing of all sizes has huge potential, not least in his constituency. At this stage, our initial focus is to establish a first-of-its-kind, large-scale manufacturing site of over 200 hectares, and after we have established that, we can look at strengthening the supply chain.

Debbie Abrahams: I am sure that I am not the only one whose heart sang when I heard about the Oxford University covid vaccine, developed in partnership with AstraZeneca. Yesterday’s “Panorama” programme about the research team made me immensely proud of this unique British achievement that will benefit not only the UK but the world at large. Our life sciences sector has always punched above its weight, but progress in medical research is being hampered because of its issues with fundraising this year. Will the Business Secretary congratulate my constituent Kevin Sinfield on running seven marathons in seven days to raise over £2.5 million for the Motor Neurone Disease Association, and will he commit to properly invest in research that could see the next breakthroughs in treatments and even cures for diseases including dementia, MND and cancer?

Lindsay Hoyle: It was a major achievement, and it shows the family of rugby league.

Alok Sharma: I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituent, Kevin Sinfield. We have a good settlement in the spending review for R&D: we are committed to reaching £22 billion a year by 2024-25.

Robert Largan: In High Peak, we are lucky to have the best pubs, restaurants, hotels and small businesses anywhere in the country. However, these businesses, by their very nature, are highly seasonal and many of them depend heavily on the busy Christmas period. Unfortunately, despite having a case rate lower   than the national average, High Peak is in tier 3. Can my hon. Friend make representations to his ministerial colleagues about getting High Peak out of tier 3 as fast as possible, and make certain that as much support as possible is provided to the affected businesses?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is a big champion for his local pubs, for which I know there will be a lot of competition. Yes, the review will be in the next couple of days, and I hope we will see a number of pubs being able to open at that point, because that is what they want. Government support has been welcomed, but customers coming back through the doors, especially in the busiest months, is what we all want to see.

David Linden: The Secretary of State will know that not all businesses need to re-furlough staff, and many that do not were counting on the £1,000 per employee job retention bonus. However, this has been scrapped, blasting a black hole in the books of countless businesses across the UK. The Treasury will not say when or how the scheme will be replaced, so can his Department perhaps give businesses some certainty over the billions in support that have been snatched away from them without warning?

Alok Sharma: I would just point out to the hon. Gentleman that, on support for businesses, what we have done is to look at the requirements and increase that support. As he will have heard, the level of support is now £280 billion. We have extended furlough and we have extended the self-employment scheme, and businesses that are now required to be closed because of restrictions can get up to £3,000 a month.

Luke Evans: The Government are focused on supporting the NHS, opening schools, getting businesses back working, and getting gyms open and leisure facilities going again, but of course the last lever is hospitality and socialising. With the advent of a vaccine, will my hon. Friend have a meeting with the Treasury to put together a pathway and a package of support for those industries most affected, such as the weddings, events, office, conference and travel industry?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised the issue about weddings and events with me on a number of occasions. We continue to work with the Treasury to see what more we can do to support the hospitality sector as a whole. I am really looking forward to working with the weddings taskforce, which has been set up by the sector itself, to see what a covid-19 secure wedding looks like and how we can introduce that when the health science allows.

Stephen Kinnock: The GMB, Unite and Unison trade unions are fighting hard for workers who are being fired and then rehired on worse terms and conditions. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that companies such as British Gas are negotiating in good faith with the workforce, not imposing these completely unacceptable practices on them?

Paul Scully: We call out British Gas and other employers if and when they are using unfair pressure in negotiations, but we do say that we need to retain flexibility as well, so that big companies can save as many jobs as possible in difficult times.

Julian Sturdy: With the imminent review of tiers, can Ministers reassure me that they are pushing firmly within Government on the fact that many businesses, especially in places such as York, where the virus is very low, are at the stage where they can no longer be subsidised for low footfall or to stay closed, but need to be able to trade as normally as possible ultimately to survive?

Paul Scully: I know the hospitality business in York has been affected, as it has around the country. Yes, we will continue to look at this and, when the data allows, we will move York and other areas into more forgiving tiers. For the hospitality sector—as I say, it welcomes Government support, largely, but wants customers—this is what is going to help the pubs, bars and restaurants in York and beyond to be able to survive and thrive.

Bill Esterson: Many freelancers and self-employed people have had little or no financial support. They do not qualify for furlough, for the self-employed scheme or for business grants. With billions of pounds being returned in tax relief for business rates by the major retailers, why are Ministers not using that money, as the retailers are suggesting, to support those hundreds of thousands of people who have had little or no financial support so far?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a whole range of support is available. I completely accept that not everyone will feel they have got precisely the amount of support that they would have liked, but a significant amount of support is available and, of course, all of this is always kept under review.

Jamie Wallis: Many businesses are linked to the NHS supply chain, such as Zimmer Biomet, one of the largest employers in my Bridgend constituency. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with ministerial colleagues about getting NHS non-urgent, non-critical procedures back up to pre-covid levels?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and my right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary is working very hard to help NHS trusts return to pre-covid levels of elective care as soon as possible. I have been really quite impressed over the past months throughout this pandemic at how businesses, both within the medical field and outside, have come together to support the NHS.

Paul Girvan: What measures can the Minister take to ensure that GB businesses do not use the Northern Ireland protocol as an excuse to refuse to do business with companies in Northern Ireland? Some are already saying that after 31 December they can no longer supply goods to those companies, and some are using the situation as an opportunity, because of the additional bureaucracy and paperwork, to increase prices.

Paul Scully: If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, I will be very interested to hear about them, but the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is there to provide certainty—to provide access for Northern Ireland to GB and vice versa.

Mary Robinson: Whistleblowing is valuable to organisations and society. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to prepare for ISO 37002, the new international standard for whistleblowing, and can he reassure my constituents that whistleblowers in the UK will enjoy enhanced protection to the same degree as, or greater than, that provided by the forthcoming EU directive?

Alok Sharma: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that whistleblowers enjoy high standards of protection under UK law. The international standard to which she refers is for employers wanting to introduce their own whistleblowing policies, which is already encouraged by our code of practice.

Nick Smith: The furlough scheme is really important for young workers—for young people—but when the scheme ends many are worried that we will see large-scale youth unemployment, so what is the Department’s input into the kickstart scheme and exactly how many jobs will be created by March next year to help young people?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the kickstart scheme is a Government initiative, and the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have led on this. I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the issue, and of course we want to make sure we continue to support young people at this crucial time. We know that when unemployment is going up, it is new workers who find it particularly difficult to get jobs.

David Johnston: On Thursday, I had the pleasure of taking my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), the Minister for science, research and innovation, to Greencore’s Springfield Meadow development in my constituency, where it is building not just net-zero homes but carbon-positive homes and selling them to Sovereign Housing at precisely the same cost as for any other kind of home. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating  Greencore on this innovation and does he agree that it is exactly the sort of thing we need more of to hit our 2050 goal?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I am delighted to report that our joint hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway) had a very successful visit and thoroughly enjoyed her trip to Greencore Construction, and we obviously heartily welcome Greencore’s excellent work in sustainable construction.

Jon Trickett: After 10 years of this Government, before covid, constituents of mine were averaging £100 a week less in earnings than the average for the rest of the country; now a third of them are on furlough, which means a further £100 less per week—£10,000 a year less than the average. Will the Minister understand that when the Government talk about levelling up, in an area like mine people will say it is time that Ministers got out of their privileged bubbles and did something for communities all over this country, where millions of people are living very precarious lives?

Alok Sharma: I know it is a very difficult time for very many families, and that they will feel that particularly acutely as we get to Christmas. I would just say that across the country we have protected 9 million jobs—households up and down our country, who have been supported by the measures that the Government have put forward; and that that will extend until the end of March, as well as the other support that has been provided.
Given that we have now come to the end of questions, Mr Speaker, I thank you and your staff for all the support that you have provided to all Members in a very challenging year. I thank all Members—including the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—for all their support, and I hope that they will have an opportunity to get some rest over the festive period.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just say thank you to the Secretary of State for completing the list? In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Personal Statement

Chris Bryant: Mr Speaker, I am utterly mortified by the events of last week when my heckling interrupted proceedings during Prime Minister’s questions and when I challenged the authority of the Chair. I entered into an altercation with the Chair and I did not treat the Chair with due respect. That is unacceptable. I apologise unreservedly to the House and to you personally, Mr Speaker. I really wish none of this had ever occurred and I fully accept that my conduct was unacceptable.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I say that I accept the hon. Member’s apology? I am content that that draws a line under the matter.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I should like to make a short business statement.
Wednesday 16 December—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of board members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
The business for Thursday remains unchanged and as previously announced. I shall provide a further update to the House regarding future business on Thursday. For hon. Members wishing to participate in tomorrow’s debate on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, Mr Speaker has made arrangements for the call list to remain open until 3 o’clock today.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will be calling only the shadow Leader of the House and the SNP Chief Whip to ask a question on the statement.

Valerie Vaz: I want to ask just a couple of short questions. It is absolutely wonderful to see that the Trade Bill is still alive; this is a small part of it. Can the Leader of the House confirm that it is coming back to the House and, if so, when?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, the Trade Bill is with their lordships and is on Report in the other place. It will come back when it has completed consideration in their lordships’ House. The bit that we are bringing forward tomorrow has already passed through this House unamended.

Patrick Grady: I just wonder if this is what the Leader of the House has campaigned for all these years and if this is what parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control are supposed to look like—legislative chaos and bouncing stuff through the House without any notice whatever. The Government are supposed to have a majority of 80, yet they cannot get their business done.
When the Leader of the House tables the orders for tomorrow, he has to include the restoration of the right of all Members of the House to take part in business remotely. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and said that there was a new strain of covid and that people should not travel to tier 3 areas, to a room full of people who had done exactly that. If there is any possibility of the House sitting next week or being recalled over Christmas, there has to be virtual participation for everyone because it is not safe to travel. Given that the east coast main line will be closed, it will not be possible for most people to travel either.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just say that we are meant to stick to the business statement? The hon. Gentleman drew a line, and that railway went a long way.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: One of the most remarkable things about this House is that the most charming Members on the SNP Benches are always the most furious whenever  they appear before the House. I must say, as we get near to the spirit of Christmas, I begin to think that the fury is somewhat confected.
In terms of the legislative programme, we are ensuring that the legislation is brought through. I warned hon. Members last Thursday, as I thought it only fair to do, that we might have to act flexibly in response to developments in what was going on. These clauses could have been introduced in the Trade Bill that we might need if we get a deal with the European Union, but the late stage of that means that it is necessary to bring that forward early. This is exactly what one would expect, given the deadline of 31 December for the negotiations with the European Union, of a trade Bill.
Regarding remote participation, we have discussed that at length in the House. We provided more than two hours of Government time to debate people’s ability to appear remotely, but regrettably the measure was talked out by Opposition Members, making it impossible for the extremely clinically vulnerable to appear remotely. I think that is a great shame.

Lindsay Hoyle: That concludes the business statement.

Online Harms Consultation

Oliver Dowden: Mr Speaker, we now conduct a huge proportion of our lives online. People in the UK spend an average of four hours and two minutes on the internet every day, and we know that for children it is even longer. That technology has improved our lives in countless ways but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know, too many people are still exposed to the worst elements of the web: illegal content, racist and misogynistic abuse, and dangerous disinformation.
Those interactions may be virtual, but they are causing real harm. More than three quarters of UK adults express concerns about logging on, while a declining number of parents believe the benefits for their children of being online outweigh the risks. Trust in tech is falling. That is bad for the public and bad for the tech companies, so today the Government are taking decisive action to protect people online.
Through our full response to the online harms White Paper, we are proposing groundbreaking regulations that will make tech companies legally responsible for the online safety of their users. That world-leading regime will rebuild public trust and restore public confidence in the tech that has not only powered us through the pandemic, but will power us into the recovery.
I know that this legislation is highly anticipated on both sides of the House. I want to reassure hon. Members that, when drafting our proposals, I sought to strike a very important balance between shielding people, particularly children, from harm and ensuring a proportionate regime that preserves one of the cornerstones of our democracy—freedom of expression. I am confident that our response strikes that balance.
Under our proposals, online companies will face a new and binding duty of care to their users, overseen by Ofcom. If those platforms fail in that duty of care, they will face steep fines of up to £18 million or 10% of annual global turnover. A number of people, including Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, have expressed concerns about that point; I want to reassure him and Members of this House that the maximum fine will be the higher of those two numbers, and platforms will no longer be able to mark their own homework.
To hold major platforms to their responsibilities, I can also announce to the House that they will be required to publish annual transparency reports to track their progress, which could include the number of reports of harmful content received and the action taken as a result. This will be a robust regime, requiring those at the top to take responsibility. I can therefore confirm that we will legislate to introduce criminal sanctions for senior managers, with Parliament taking the final decision on whether to introduce that. Of course, we hope not to use those powers, and for tech companies to engineer the harm out of their platforms from the outset, but people should have no doubt that they remain an option and we will use them if we need to.
Together, those measures make this the toughest and most comprehensive online safety regime in the world. They will have a clear and immediate effect: a 13-year-old should no longer be able to access pornographic images on Twitter; YouTube will not be allowed to recommend  videos promoting terrorist ideologies; and antisemitic hate crime will need to be removed without delay. Those are just a few examples, but the House will take a keen interest in the details of the legislation, so I shall lay out a few key areas of action.
Our first focus is on illegal content, including child sexual abuse, terrorism and posts that incite violence and hatred. Sadly, many Members present today have been the target of online abuse, some of which might have been illegal, such as threats of violence. Unfortunately, that is particularly true for female Members of the House. This is not a problem suffered only by people in the public eye; close to half of adults in the United Kingdom say that they have been exposed to hateful content online in the past year.
Under the new laws, all companies in scope will need to take swift and effective action to remove criminal posts—if it is illegal offline, it is illegal online. Users will be better able to report this abhorrent content and can expect to receive more support from platforms. Crucially, the duty of care will apply even when communications are end-to-end encrypted. Encryption cannot serve as a protection blanket for criminals. Given the severity of certain threats, Ofcom will also be given powers to require companies to use technology proactively to identify and remove illegal content involving child sexual abuse or terrorism—that is a power of last resort.
Of course, not all harmful content is illegal. Every day, people are exposed to posts, images and videos that do not break any laws, but still cause a significant amount of harm. We all know that cyber-bullying can ruin a child’s life, but I want first to address one particularly horrific form of legal content. Sadly, too many Members present will be aware of cases in which children are drawn into watching videos that can encourage self-harm. Some find themselves bombarded with that content, sometimes ending ultimately in tragedy. It is unforgivable that that sort of content should be circulating unchecked on social media. Given the severity of its consequences, I believe that there is a strong case for making it illegal.
I can therefore announce that the Government have asked the Law Commission to examine how the criminal law will address the encouragement or assistance of self-harm. This is an incredibly sensitive area. We need to take careful steps to ensure that we do not inadvertently punish vulnerable people, but we need to act now to prevent future tragedies.
Many Members are particularly concerned about the effect online harm has on children. We have reserved our strongest and toughest protections for them. All companies will need to consider seriously the risks their platforms may pose to children and to take action. They will no longer be able to abdicate responsibility by claiming that children do not use their services when that is manifestly untrue—we all know examples of that—and we also expect them to prevent children from accessing services that pose the highest risk of harm, including online pornography. Cutting-edge age assurance or verification technologies will be a vital part of keeping children safe online.
At the same time, we are going further than any other country to tackle other categories of legal but harmful content accessed by adults. Major platforms will face additional obligations to enforce their own terms and   conditions against things such as dangerous vaccine misinformation and cyber-bullying. Where the platforms fall short, they will face the legal consequences.
I know that some hon. Members are worried that the regulations may impose undue burdens on smaller, low-risk companies, so I can reassure them that we have included exemptions for such companies. As a result, less than 3% of UK businesses will fall within the scope of the legislation.
In this House we have always ardently championed freedom of expression. Robust and free debate is what gives our democracy its historic strength. So let me be clear: the purpose of the proposed regime is not to stop adults accessing content with which they disagree. It is not our job to protect people against being offended. I will not allow this legislation to become a weapon against free debate. Therefore, we will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content. Companies will not be able arbitrarily to remove controversial viewpoints, and users will be able to seek redress if they feel that content has been removed unfairly.
Nor will I allow this legislation to stifle media freedoms or become a charter to impose our world view and suppress that of others. I can confirm that news publishers’ own content on their sites is not in scope, nor are the comments of users on that content. This legislation is targeted exactly where it needs to be and tightly focused on delivering our core manifesto pledge to empower adult users to stay safe online while ensuring that children are protected.
We have engaged extensively to get to this point  and this process is by no means over. We want all parliamentarians to feed into this significant piece of work and will continue to listen to their concerns as we go through pre-legislative scrutiny and beyond. However, I am confident that today’s measures mark a significant step in the continual evolution of our approach to life online, and it is fitting that this should be a step that our country takes. The world wide web was, of course, invented by a Brit, and now the UK is setting a safety standard for the rest of the world to follow. I commend this statement to the House.

Jo Stevens: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Let me start by saying that the Opposition welcome any moves to protect children and the vulnerable online. There are plenty of questions about gaps in the Government’s response relating to protecting children online, but the emphasis on children in this statement is very welcome.
We have been calling on the Government to introduce this legislation for almost two years. The publication of the online harms White Paper seems almost a lifetime ago. The legislation is long overdue, and I would like the Secretary of State to tell us when in 2021 the House can expect to see the Bill, because until it is on the statute book, the real harm that he just described, which has been able to flourish online through a lack of regulation, will continue. Ireland has already published its legislation. France has produced legislation dealing with hate speech. Germany has had legislation in place since 2018, and the European Commission is expected to publish its proposed Digital Services Act today.
The Secretary of State has said that the UK will lead the way with this legislation, but I am afraid that the response today is lacking in ambition. It feels like a  missed opportunity. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to legislate for the kind of internet we want to see that keeps both children and adult citizens safe and allows people to control what kind of content they see online. Instead, the Government have been timid, or maybe the Secretary of State was persuaded by Sheryl Sandberg and Nick Clegg in his meeting with them last month to water down the original proposals. Social media platforms have failed for years to self-regulate. The Secretary of State knows that, everyone in this House knows that, and the public know that.
On legal but harmful material, why are companies being left to set their own terms and conditions and then judged on their own enforcement of those terms and conditions? It is exactly the wrong incentive. It will actively encourage less strict terms and conditions, so the platforms can more easily say that they are being properly enforced. When the Secretary of State says that companies will no longer be marking their own homework, I am afraid that he is wrong, because that is exactly what they will be doing.
The financial penalties described are welcome, but the Government have given in to big tech lobbying on criminal liability for senior executives for repeated breaches being properly built into the forthcoming legislation and implemented straight away. Rather, that will be left hanging to a possible future date through additional secondary legislation. Ireland’s legislation will include criminal sanctions rather than the vague threat that the Secretary of State has decided on. Will he explain what is to be gained by waiting? Never mind one last chance—repeat offenders have had chance after chance after chance.
The Secretary of State has referred to the novel concept of age assurance. Is that the same as age verification—the age verification that has been accepted by both the platforms and users as being unenforceable—or is it something different?
We know that online harms can easily become real harm. Encouragement and assistance of self-harm is one example, as the Secretary of State has mentioned. Harmful anti-vaccination disinformation impacting on public health is another. The Government have said today that they are asking the Law Commission to examine how criminal law will address the issue of encouragement or assistance of self-harm, but the Government could have asked the Law Commission to do that nearly two years ago when the White Paper was published. They have not done the hard work of deciding what should perhaps be illegal, which would have made their response today a better one.
There are also other notable absences from the response, including those on financial harm and online scams. This is a growing area of concern for millions of people across the United Kingdom, so why has this been ignored in the response? The Secretary of State has referred to failing public trust in tech. He says that he wants to rebuild it, but, sadly, today’s statement does not live up to that aspiration.

Oliver Dowden: I am rather sorry that the hon. Lady seems intent on seeing the negative in everything. This is a groundbreaking piece of legislation. Let me go through some of the points that she raises. She talks about our being timid in the face of tech lobbying. First of all, I can assure her that, although I have discussed end-to-end encryption in respect of national security issues, I have  not discussed with Sheryl Sandberg or Nick Clegg any online harm provisions. That is simply not the case. Indeed I think that she will find from the reaction of some tech firms that they are struck by the scale of the fines that we are proposing. These would be some of the largest fines ever imposed. It is up to 10% of the global revenue of a company such as Facebook, which shows how enormous the maximum fine could be.
On criminal liability, I want tech firms to comply with this, and if they do not do so, they will face steep fines. If they still do not comply, Members should be in no doubt that their senior managers will face criminal sanction. We will take the power in this Bill—we will not have to come back to the House for primary legislation—and enact it through secondary legislation.
The hon. Lady asks about what we have been doing so far. We have taken many steps already to protect people online. For example, just a couple of months ago, the Information Commissioner’s age appropriate design code was put before Parliament. Today, alongside this full response to the White Paper, we are publishing, through the Home Office, an interim code of practice on online child sexual exploitation and abuse, and we will do so similarly in relation to terrorist content and activity online. We will expect tech firms to start complying with that now. It is clear what the Government’s intent is and if those firms fail to do so, we will have the powers through this legislation to ensure that that happens.
The hon. Lady asks about letting tech firms mark their own homework. We are empowering Ofcom to hold these tech firms to account. First of all, we will make sure that the terms and conditions are robust, and if they are not, those firms will face consequences. If they do not enforce those terms and conditions, they will face consequences, and this House will set out what those legal but harmful things are through secondary legislation. We will propose the sort of harms that those tech firms should guard against. Members of this House will be able to vote on them, and those firms will have to take action appropriately. I believe that this marks a significant step forward, and Opposition Members should welcome this important step in protecting children, particularly online.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Julian Knight.

Julian Knight: It has been two long years since the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on fake news, and it is welcome that, at long last, the Government have moved to appoint a regulator, to impose a duty of care and to put in place a substantial fines regime. However, there are still areas of concern. Can the Secretary of State outline his thinking on these? Does he accept that the number of priority categories defined as online harm needs to be broadened from what is currently envisaged to include things such as misinformation? The Secretary of State rightly focused on children, but this is about more than children; it is about the very status of our society and about looking after adults.
The Secretary of State also mentioned transparency reports. How can we ensure that these transparency reports do not become another exercise in public relations for the tech firms? Will there be independent outside academic oversight? When it comes to news publishing exemptions, will that also apply to video sharing?
Finally, does the Secretary of State also recognise that a system of dynamic, ongoing enforcement through a financial services style compliance regime in tier 1 social media companies provides a good belt and braces for retrospective enforcement action on what prelegislative scrutiny is planned?

Oliver Dowden: My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee asks about the involvement of the Committee; we will of course seek to involve the Committee extensively in the prelegislative scrutiny. He has already made an important suggestion about dynamic monitoring, which we will of course consider as we firm up the legislation.
My hon. Friend talks about a video sharing; the exemption for news publishers to protect freedom of speech will apply to all their output and will include that.
My hon. Friend asks about disinformation; if disinformation—for example, anti-vax content—causes harm to individuals, it will be covered by the legislation, and I very much expect to set that out as one of the priority areas that would have to be addressed in secondary legislation.

John Nicolson: I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his speech, much of which we SNP Members agree with.
At a time when anti-vax disinformation floods social media, when hate is spouted at minority groups under the cowardly veil of anonymity, often without consequence for the perpetrators, and when more children than ever before are using the internet and need to be shielded from harmful content, the proposed online harms Bill is welcome.
We welcome, too, the requirement that companies must accept a duty of care, and the fact that Ofcom will be the independent regulator—but it must be a regulator with teeth. As Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s boss, told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee a short while ago, Ofcom needs much-enhanced powers to be effective; what additional powers will she have?
To enjoy maximum support in the House, the Bill must, while balancing the right to free expression, tackle illegal content as well as content that is potentially harmful but not illegal. In particular, companies must protect all children from harm, and the Government are right to recognise that.
The covid epidemic and lockdown have seen a surge in homophobia and transphobia online. The TIE—Time for Inclusive Education—campaign reports a 72% rise in attacks on and cyber-bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people, with organisations such as the so-called LGB Alliance leading the onslaught. In that context, surely there is a case for looking again at social media anonymity. Noms de plume are fine, but we believe that users’ identities should be known to the social media publishers—they should not be completely anonymous in all circumstances. Does the Secretary of State agree with that?
Social media disinformation has been especially pernicious during the covid pandemic. Experts tell us that the disinformation during this crisis is unparalleled  in the internet era, and the consequences of online harm can be catastrophic, undermining public trust, faith in health officials and acceptance of the value of the vaccine now being rolled out.
In principle, we welcome much in the proposals. Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating—exactly how tough the Government are prepared to be in reality, how hard they will be on the social media companies, and whether they will enforce some of the proposals—but we welcome it.

Oliver Dowden: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the legislation. He raised some important points. On anonymity, we have not taken powers to remove anonymity because it is very important for some people—for example, victims fleeing domestic violence and children who have questions about their sexuality that they do not want their families to know they are exploring. There are many reasons to protect that anonymity.
The hon. Gentleman talks about Ofcom; over the years, we have seen Ofcom rise to the challenge of increased responsibilities and I am confident that it will continue to do so. We will of course look to Ofcom to bring in independent expertise to help it in that process. It will clearly require a step change from Ofcom, but Dame Melanie Dawes and others are very much alert to that.
The hon. Gentleman talks about misinformation and disinformation. There are three things that we have to do to address those. First, we have to rely on trusted sources. We are so fortunate in this country to have well-established newspapers and broadcasters that are committed to public service information. We have seen that through the covid crisis, which is why we have supported them through this period. Secondly, we have to rebut false information. Through the Cabinet Office, we are working 24/7 to do that. Finally, we have to work with the tech companies themselves. For example, the Health Secretary and I have recently secured commitments to remove misinformation and disinformation within 48 hours and, crucially, not to profit from it. To the hon. Gentleman’s central concern, I think these measures really do mark a step change in our approach to tech firms. The old certainties are changing, and we are taking decisive action.

Jeremy Wright: I welcome the progress that the Government are making in this area, and my right hon. Friend’s personal commitment and determination to deliver it, but, as he said, there is further progress to be made. That progress will only really be made when we see legislation, which I urge him again to introduce as soon as possible. In the meantime, I understand the Government’s focus on the larger platforms where the greatest harms are likely to be concentrated, but may I urge him, in the design and architecture of the regulatory system that he is putting in place, to ensure that it can deal with smaller platforms that grow fast or that host particularly damaging material, and, of course, that it can deal with the ever-changing nature of the harms themselves?

Oliver Dowden: I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend and other former Culture Secretaries represented in the House, all of whom have played a decisive role in helping to shape this important legislation.  My right hon. and learned Friend rightly raises the point about smaller platforms. What we have sought to do with these proposals is to exclude very small enterprises—for example, a cheese retailer that allows its customers to leave comments on its site. Strictly speaking, that is user-generated material, but I think we would all agree that we would not want that to be within scope. However, at the same time, some smaller sites can be used as a back route— for example, for paedophiles to exchange information. We will design the legislation proportionately so that we can upscale the regulation in those sorts of cases.

Clive Efford: I welcome the legislation as far as it goes, and agree with the Secretary of State that it is landmark legislation, rather like the Gambling Act 2005, which was put through the House by the previous Labour Government. I remind him that it was largely the things that were not covered by that legislation that came back to be the most challenging issues to confront us all. Given that, let me ask the Secretary of State about the scope of the legislation: will it cover online harms such as the targeted advertising of gambling at young people, gambling through social media or even loot boxes in online gaming, whereby young people are asked to pay for boxes of which they do not know the content?

Oliver Dowden: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have already issued a call for evidence in respect of loot boxes, and will take appropriate action in response. Many of the issues that he has raised are covered by our call for evidence on gambling. The scope of this legislation will cover any platform that allows self-generated content to be on it; to the extent that gambling websites have user-generated content on them, they will fall within the scope of this legislation, potentially.

Sajid Javid: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He has said that at the heart of these measures is the protection of our children—something with which the whole House will agree. He may know that I am leading an investigation with the Centre for Social Justice on the epidemic of child sexual abuse and exploitation that is taking place in our country. I therefore particularly welcome what he said today about the publication of the interim code of conduct on online child sexual abuse. But for it to have any effect, it must have teeth; it must be legally binding. Will he assure the House that when the online safety Bill becomes an Act, this code will be a statutory obligation?

Oliver Dowden: I pay tribute to the work that my right hon Friend is doing, both on this and through the important work of the Centre for Social Justice. Yes, I can certainly give him that assurance. As I said, I would expect tech firms to abide by these codes of practice now—they have been published in interim form—because it is in the interests of tech firms to clean up their act, and this gives them a way of doing so. That has been the point across our approach. Of course, if they fail to do so, we will take the power in legislation to make it binding regardless, but I hope that the firms will abide by the codes of practice and I do not have to use those powers.

Jamie Stone: Clearly, regulations alone will not be strong enough to tackle the challenges of the internet. I am sure every  single one of us in this place regards the safety of our children as absolutely paramount, so may I suggest to the Secretary of State that the education of our children might empower them to take down or zap harmful stuff online? What consideration is he giving to improving the education of children to give them that ability? Will he also have discussions with his colleague the Secretary of State for Education to that end, and might he further extend those discussions to the equivalent Ministers in the devolved Administrations?

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and of course I will be happy to extend that discussion. I am already doing so with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, but I would happy to do so with representatives of the devolved Governments. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of education, and that applies not just to children but to parents. The more that parents, particularly those who have not grown up with the internet, understand the risks involved for their children, the better equipped they are to take action. Probably the single most important thing that parents can do is better understand the risks. That is why, in respect of children, we will be publishing the online media literacy strategy in the spring to address exactly that.

Damian Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his important and long-awaited statement on this piece of legislation. I have a few questions, though. He mentioned that social media companies would be required to produce transparency reports on their effectiveness in dealing with harmful content. Will Ofcom be able to audit those reports and request data and information from the companies? Otherwise, those reports will not be very transparent at all. He also said that there would be a carve-out exemption for news providers. I agree with that, but how is he defining a news provider? Some of the most egregious spreaders of disinformation pretend to be new providers but are actually fake news websites. It is important that we know that. He also said that if companies’ terms and conditions did not come up to standard and they did not meet their duty of care obligations, they would “face the legal consequences”. Can he say what those consequences will be?

Oliver Dowden: As ever, my hon. Friend raises some very pertinent questions. On the powers for Ofcom, it will be able to interrogate data and equipment. The question around the definition of news publishers is a challenging one, for the reasons that he sets out. Essentially, we want to avoid the situation whereby a harmful source of information sets up as if it were a news publisher. That will be an important part of our engagement with Members of the House through the pre-legislative scrutiny, so I hope I will be able to reassure him on those points.

Carla Lockhart: I welcome today’s announcement and trust that it represents progress towards making the internet a safer place for my constituents. In protecting our children, the vulnerable and wider society online, there can be no half measures. In that regard, I have a number of areas of concern. The Secretary of State made reference to cutting-edge age assurance or verification technologies. Can he explain what exactly is meant by age assurance and the practicalities  of that process? How does it differ from age verification? What evidence is there that it is more effective in protecting children from harmful content? Does he also agree that the prevalence of online scams—and the thousands of lives across the UK impacted by such scams—makes their omission from the Government’s response significant? Will he outline how the Government will address this increasingly widespread online harm?

Oliver Dowden: On age assurance, we are looking at the sort of emerging technology whereby, for example, one can look at how children type and use artificial intelligence to see that it is a child rather than an adult. Just yesterday, I was at a company called SafeToNet, which is doing fantastic work—for example, building into social media platforms through the electronic device that a child is using, whether that is an iPad or a phone, safety features that would block pornographic images and so on. The hon. Lady also asked me about further powers that we are taking. Forgive me; I have temporarily forgotten the point that she raised, but I am happy to write to her on that point.

David Johnston: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Large tech platforms build incredibly complicated models to track our every move, profile us and suggest products that we might want to buy. They even now read our messages and suggest how we might like to reply, and yet when it comes to removing harmful content, they suggest that it is too difficult for them. Does he agree that what he is setting out is well within their capabilities, as long as they have the will?

Oliver Dowden: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Too often, tech firms say that they cannot do such things, but strangely, when it is in their commercial interest to do so, they find a way of doing it. This legislation is setting a clear direction of travel from Government, so that they know that we will be willing to take that action to force them to take measures in the public interest.

Alison Thewliss: First Steps Nutrition Trust has launched a study this month which shows the impact of online marketing of infant formula. I am all for impartial information, but that is not what is happening. Baby clubs, carelines and online influencers have free rein, and they are undermining breastfeeding and pushing parents to buy more expensive formula than they can afford. Will the Secretary of State protect our youngest citizens and prohibit all infant formula advertising online?

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The purpose of this legislation is to deal with user-generated content. If that sort of thing is being promoted by users, which we can all see is a popular marketing device, it will fall within scope. It is similar to the point raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about fraud. If fraud is being promoted through user generation, that is a harm that can be addressed, but it does not extend to the whole scale of advertising, which is beyond the intent of the legislation.

Jo Gideon: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Earlier this year, Staffordshire police, Stoke-on-Trent City Council and  Staffordshire County Council launched an operation to crack down on gangs exploiting children through county lines, drug dealing and other criminality. These children are often groomed and recruited on online platforms and messaging services. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the rules outlined in the online harms consultation, technology firms will be required to build technology into their platforms that can prevent that sort of activity?

Oliver Dowden: Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance. Companies must tackle illegal content on their platforms and protect children from harmful content and activity online. They really do need to build the right systems. As I said in answer to a previous question, I have seen the technology; there is no excuse anymore not to use it.

Darren Jones: I want to ask the Secretary of State two questions on the issue of how we understand what is harmful but perhaps legal. First, will Ofcom be given the powers that it already has for other regulated sectors to demand access to information about how a service is being used and what content is on it? Secondly, why has the Secretary of State abandoned age verification?

Oliver Dowden: On age verification, we are moving it from what we previously had, which was not dealing with user-generated content. Most pornography that children access is on sites that have user-generated content. Usually, that is the way that children stumble across it by mistake. It is really important that we broaden the scope of what we are doing, and that is precisely what we are addressing through this legislation.

Christian Wakeford: Earlier this year, we witnessed the Wiley scandal, which saw an antisemitic rant over numerous posts. It took 72 hours and a mass boycott of social media by the Jewish community and its supporters before any action was taken by the platforms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the law should apply online as it does offline and that online platforms must do more to stop the spread of hate speech and illegal content?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think the hon. Gentleman forgot to put on his tie and jacket.

Oliver Dowden: Sadly that will not be addressed by this legislation, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Not that I could—I believe that is a matter for the House.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about antisemitic abuse. I have met organisations about that in framing the legislation. Most antisemitism is illegal and should be addressed through the provisions made for illegality. Beyond that, we will be setting out, as a priority, harms to be addressed through this legislation.

Margaret Hodge: I, too, welcome this statement. In the past two months, Community Security Trust has identified 90,000 posts mentioning me. Most were hostile, antisemitic, misogynistic and ageist. Many were anonymous and, through disinformation, aimed to undermine my credibility and so silence me. I would ask the Secretary of State to think again. Does he not agree that anonymity on social  media can no longer be universally protected, although it should be protected for groups such as whistleblowers and victims of domestic violence? Will he not agree that where users post illegal content or harmful abuse, social media companies should be required to collect and pass on information on the identity of the user to regulatory bodies and to the police?

Oliver Dowden: The right hon. Lady raises a very important point. As a Member of Parliament who proudly represents a very large Jewish community, I know the challenges of antisemitism, and that has been at the front of my mind in framing this legislation. It is a challenging area, this point about anonymity. Of course, if there is criminal conduct that the police and law enforcement agencies are investigating, they have ways of dealing with that anonymity in order to bring criminal cases. The reluctance I have had, and the Government have had, to introduce provision across the board is about how we lift the veil of anonymity while at the same time protecting some very vulnerable people who rely on it. But of course we will continue to keep it under review.

Karen Bradley: I fear that we on the Government Benches feel a little like the ghost of Secretaries of State past for my right hon. Friend. I welcome this statement and the moves that the Government have made. Taking him back to the issue of age assurance and age verification, I am pleased to hear that he is looking at different types of technology to protect children, but will he please not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and do something around age verification as soon as possible?

Oliver Dowden: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I should pay tribute to all her work in this area. Of course we will not allow the best to be the enemy of the good. We will not be mandating the use of specific technological approaches. We know that those technological approaches are available, and Ofcom will be holding tech companies to account to make sure that they take advantage of them in order to provide protection for children.

Liz Twist: As the Secretary of State will be aware, Wikipedia, while not a social network, is edited by its users. It includes highly dangerous instructional information on suicide generated by those users. How will that be covered by the forthcoming legislation, and how will he deal with the international aspect of preventing harm online?

Oliver Dowden: I thank the hon. Lady for her question; she raises an important point. We are looking to legislate to make self-harm illegal—to push it into that category. On international engagement, there is a coalition of nations around the world that are now moving in this direction, including the US. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) mentioned steps taken in Ireland and elsewhere. We have constantly led this debate. We started this debate with these proposals and we are delivering them at a faster pace than other countries around the world.

Maria Miller: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. However, we have to be very clear that the duty of care and the  regulator that he is proposing will not look at or resolve individual complaints. What is more, we are already seeing some of the smart movers in the online world starting to change their practices so that they will evade the regulation that he is talking about. So, to be really effective this Bill has to sit alongside stronger and clearer laws that protect the individual from dreadful online abuse, such as image-based abuse which the Secretary of State and I have talked about, and which I know he cares as deeply as I do about resolving. He cannot introduce one without the other, so can he give me an assurance today that he will put reforms, particularly with regard to online image-based abuse, on the same time-footing as the Bill he is talking about today?

Oliver Dowden: My right hon Friend, another former Culture Secretary, makes an important point. She and I have discussed this at length. It is absolutely essential that, alongside the duties of care, we specifically outlaw certain things: she has made important points around deep fakes, cyber-flashing and so on. I can confirm that, working with the Law Commission, we will be looking through this legislation specifically to outlaw that kind of activity and make it illegal.

Chris Elmore: As the Secretary of State will undoubtedly be aware, I really welcome this Bill; I honestly believe that it is well intended, but fear it is rather muddled and jumbled. I would like to know when the Bill is coming to the Floor of the House—not pre-legislative scrutiny, as the Secretary of State has mentioned in answer to several other Members, but when the Bill is coming—because we have been waiting two years for just this statement. I would also like to know why delay culpability has been delayed; self-governance has not worked for 15 years, so why delay it? Finally, why not deal with the issues around economic crime? That is increasing, and I believe it is a mistake not to deal with the problems of economic crime in society through platforms.

Oliver Dowden: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s overall support. On when this will be coming, the legislation will be brought before the House in 2021. He asked about economic crime, and other Members also raised that. [Interruption.] Well, to the extent that this comes from user-generated content, of course it will fall within scope, but if we seek to make this Bill deal with every harm on the internet, it will quickly become very unwieldy. Most fraud comes as a result of activities such as online advertising. We must try to have some sort of a scope around this.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we are delaying taking powers. We are not delaying taking powers: from the get-go, these enormous fines of up to 10% of global turnover will be imposed. If that is still not effective, we will have taken the power to use criminal sanctions for senior managers, and it will simply be a case of passing secondary legislation to bring that into force. As it is such a big step to have criminal liability, if we can avoid criminal liability I would like to do so. I believe the fines will be sufficient, but if they are not, then we will have taken those powers.

Tim Loughton: I welcome these robust proposals, particularly the focus on children, but they need to lead to robust legislation   and robust practice. I particularly welcome the referral to the Law Commission about self-harm sites; will my right hon. Friend make sure they include so-called self-help sites on eating disorders, which are nothing of the sort and just promote those sorts of behaviour?
May I also return to the point of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) about anonymity, because it is key? Whether it is hate speech, extremism, antisemitism or grooming sites, the perpetrators hide behind anonymity. When they get taken down, they reappear under a different name. Is it not possible for them to have to reveal their identity, and prove their identity to the platform providers only, so it does not involve whistleblowers revealing themselves, so that they cannot get away with it, they cannot keep reposting, and they can be referred to the police where necessary?

Oliver Dowden: I hear my hon. Friend’s points about anonymity, and, as he said, they were made very powerfully by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). We are seeking to get the balance right so that we protect victims of domestic violence and others who rely on anonymity; of course, there are the law enforcement powers, but we genuinely keep an open mind, and if we can find a way of doing this that is proportionate, we will continue to consider whether there are measures we can take as we go through pre-legislative scrutiny. We are grappling with that challenge.

Stephen Timms: The Work and Pensions Committee is inquiring into pension scams. Much of that problem is online, boosting the profits of tech firms and causing immense hardship. Martin Lewis, Which?, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) on the Front Bench and others have called for such scams to be in scope here. The right hon. Gentleman says they will be if they are “user-generated”, so can he explain how these measures will address the very serious problem of financial online harms?

Oliver Dowden: Through secondary legislation, we will set out priority harms. I will not go into every last harm, because that will be a process for scrutiny. On the broader point about financial fraud and so on, the right hon. Gentleman raises very important points, and of course we will seek to address that as a Government; I am just not convinced that this is the appropriate legislative vehicle for doing so.

Craig Whittaker: Whether it is on promoting illegal content, anti-vaccine content, covid denial or conspiracy theories in general, for far too long now social media platforms have failed to get their own houses in order, and trust in the industry has fallen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures he is proposing today will ensure a new age of accountability for tech that in turn will restore trust in the industry?

Oliver Dowden: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. This marks a watershed and introduces that new age of accountability. For too long, tech firms have considered that because of the novelty of their technology,  they are not subject to the same norms as others—broadcasters and so on. This starts to redress that balance.

Navendu Mishra: This is a global problem that requires a global response. Will the Secretary of State confirm what co-operation protocols are in place to block offending platforms across multiple countries?

Oliver Dowden: First, on blocking offending platforms, we will reserve that power in this legislation; it is a power that will be available to Ofcom. Of course, we engage on exactly those points through various international forums, and we continue to work together.

Kieran Mullan: Even the most vigilant parents struggle to keep up with the latest apps, websites and ways to get around parental controls. While parental responsibility will always remain key, these proposals help parents to deliver that. However, I think people will be concerned to know that the proposals have teeth, especially when it comes to the very wealthy companies that are involved. Can the Secretary assure us that they do have teeth, and that he will be able to act in a way that means something to these companies?

Oliver Dowden: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There seems to be a degree of complacency from some Opposition Members about the scale of the fines we are proposing. We have never before proposed fining tech firms up to 10% of global turnover. That is an enormous sum for them, and it gives real teeth and credibility to what we are doing.

Stephen Flynn: A constituent of mine in Aberdeen has been in contact to say that in recent months they have had to respond to three instances of children in primary school accessing Pornhub on mobile phones. I am sure the Secretary of State shares my profound concern about that, but we do not want warm words; we want action, so will he confirm if and when online age verification checks will finally be put in place?

Oliver Dowden: As a father of primary-age children, I share the hon. Gentleman’s complete outrage that that is possible. This legislation will address exactly that. A site like Pornhub will fall within the scope of this legislation, because it has a large amount of user-generated content, and we will expect it to take appropriate measures to safeguard children from accessing the site. If it fails to do so, it will face severe consequences.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the statement. Bearing in mind that the perpetrators of online harms and abuse know no international boundaries, does the Secretary of State agree that, as a member of the Council of Europe, which is a key pillar for the protection of human rights online, we have an important ally in the ECHR, which rules on applications alleging violations? What plans does he have to work with our international partners? Particularly given the speed at which technology moves, how can he be sure that his proposals will keep pace with technological advances and escalating international activity? Bearing in mind the high-profile international  cases involving people with autism, can he offer better international protection for individuals caught up inadvertently in incidents?

Oliver Dowden: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I make this announcement to the House, I am writing to my counterparts around the world to inform them of what the British Government are doing; it is world leading. There is a lot of interest from my counterparts around the world and I shall be working with them because although, as we all know, the UK is a significant country in terms of market share for tech firms, we cannot operate in isolation. It is important to work with major markets, such as the US and the EU, to achieve a co-ordinated approach. We are all trying to move in this direction, so the more we can join up our approach, the more effective we can be.

Angela Eagle: Online activity is really important to extremists of all kinds in furthering their aims. Fake news—disinformation—is the currency of authoritarian forces, undermining our democracy; and on their business models, currently tech companies profit from that. What action would the Bill take to defend our democratic values if it was on the statute book now? How would it solve this threat?

Oliver Dowden: This legislation is specifically aimed at harm caused to individuals, so of course, to the extent that there is harm to individuals, such material will fall within the scope of this legislation. But remember: this sits alongside other action by the Government. For example, the Cabinet Office is leading work on the cross-government defending democracy programme, to deal with the wider challenges to our democratic values.

Greg Smith: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. Organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation have over 24 years’ experience in tackling threats to children online; indeed, the foundation played a huge role in reducing the percentage of vile, indecent images of children from 18% of such images held on UK servers across the globe, down to 1% today. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that organisations like the foundation will be fully involved, so that we may harness their expertise in the regulatory framework that he brings forward?

Oliver Dowden: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have, of course, met the Internet Watch Foundation. Ofcom will need to draw on expert advice, and I would expect that to include that of the foundation.

Joanna Cherry: I was very pleased to hear the Minister mention misogynistic abuse. In October 2019, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report on democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, in which we found that in relation to its hateful conduct policy, Twitter has omitted sex from the list of protected characteristics; that means that shocking misogynistic images and violent abuse and threats against women are often found not to be in violation of Twitter’s policies.
Does the Minister agree with the Committee’s recommendation that Twitter should remedy that omission, so that the protected characteristic of sex is protected  by its hateful conduct policy? Does he agree that all the protected characteristics deserve equal protection in any online harm legislation?

Oliver Dowden: The short answer is yes. I agree with the hon. and learned Lady; misogyny should and will be addressed. The point of the legislation is that Ofcom will hold tech companies to account, to make sure that they have policies that deal effectively with misogyny, that they enforce those policies, and that if they fail to do so they will face the financial consequences. We reserve criminal powers to act as well.

Ben Lake: Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, hate speech and harmful content are not static entities and are constantly changing and adapting. With that in mind, how will the legislation be future-proofed to ensure that regulations remain effective in tackling harmful content as its nature inevitably evolves?

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Several other hon. Members have raised the point about future-proofing, and I apologise for not addressing it in my answers so far. Ofcom will be given the discretion to deal with emerging threats, through codes of conduct and so on, but we will also use secondary legislation and identification of priority harms. We are not including those in primary legislation to enable us, over time, to update those priority harms as new threats emerge.

Felicity Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that senior managers of social media companies must be held responsible if they fail to protect children and vulnerable people?

Oliver Dowden: Yes, I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for her question. These kinds of financial penalties we are proposing will cause all senior executives to sit up and think. The last thing one would want to do in a senior management position in such a company is to expose it to such a high level of fine, but we will still, ultimately, reserve the criminal sanction as well, in the way I have set out.

Yvette Cooper: The Select Committee on Home Affairs has spent many years being deeply frustrated by the weak responses of social media companies to our urging them to take action against hateful extremism and online child abuse, so I welcome the measures the Secretary of State has announced. The Government response states that
“the regulator will have the power to require companies to use automated technology…to identify illegal child sexual exploitation and abuse content or activity on their services, including, where proportionate, on private channels.”
Will he confirm that that means major platforms will need to use this automated technology on the end-to-end encrypted private channels? What proportionality test is he applying here, given that child sexual abuse is clearly so abhorrent and wrong in all circumstances? When will it ever be disproportionate to pursue this?

Oliver Dowden: The right hon. Lady raises important points. On private channels, companies will be expected to use emergent technology to check for this sort of  thing happening. The point about proportionality is that clearly we cannot expect them to individually, through human activity, spot this kind of thing; they will have to rely on artificial intelligence and so on. So as the regulator becomes confident that those technologies work, it will expect the firms in question to use it. There is a slightly separate issue about end-to-end encryption, and she will be familiar with the sort of conversations the Home Secretary and I are having with Facebook, for example, on that. Encryption cannot be used as an excuse to get out of being subject to this legislation, and we would expect firms that use end-to-end encryption still to take measures to protect against child abuse and exploitation, for precisely the reasons the right hon. Lady sets out.

John Howell: In 2007, the Council of Europe produced a convention, which I understand we have signed, that deals with the online abuse of children. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and other members of the Council of Europe to strengthen that convention, in order to make sure that the regulators are genuinely robust and can deal with this problem?

Oliver Dowden: Yes, of course I would be delighted to do so. As Members will know, child abuse, sadly, knows no boundaries—the child abuse viewed by people in this country is often generated around the world—so it is important that we have a co-ordinated approach.

Peter Kyle: Will this Bill tackle the website craigslist, which profits from perpetrators who place adverts that sexually exploit young people? If they are acting like pimps, is it not about time we started treating them as such?

Oliver Dowden: Yes, of course the scope of this Bill covers any websites that host user-generated content. Within that, all sites that are subject to this legislation will have to take measures to protect children—this is across the board, not just the category 1 providers—so I would expect that to happen.

Damian Hinds: This is world-leading, and I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has had to say today. Ultimately, I suspect we will need to move towards global norms and even global institutions, but today I am particularly encouraged by what he has said about so-called “legal but harmful” material, confirming that this is not just about platforms setting their own terms and conditions. I welcome the role he outlined for Parliament in the secondary legislation. As the Government set that secondary legislation, may I encourage him to have in mind harms such as self-harm and eating disorders, which are growing so rapidly among young people? I am talking about not only the active encouragement and assistance of those things, but the prevalence of normalisation of them on the internet and therefore in young people’s lives.

Oliver Dowden: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance, and he is right in what he says. The nub of this proposed legislation is to deal with that legal but harmful issue and ensure that those duties of care are in place. On the law and children, we would expect  companies to do this already, but this will ensure that they take action to enforce the law as it stands. The new area of regulation being created is in respect of “legal but harmful” and of course we will engage extensively with hon. Members in identifying that in secondary legislation.

Olivia Blake: Many problems are down to systems, not individual posts, when sharing disinformation. How will the legislation deal with the systems? What responsibility will cross-posting sites have for the content propagated through their channels?

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Lady has hit on exactly the essence of the problem and what we have sought to do through the legislation. The reason we are imposing a duty of care is precisely because we know that such things evolve over time and that each company needs to take appropriate steps. Clearly, we cannot individually identify every single harm or every single action. Instead, we are setting it out as a duty of care to ensure that flexibility.

Ruth Edwards: I welcome the new regulations and my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that smaller businesses and new entrants to the market will not be disadvantaged. Can he tell me what criteria will be used to determine when a business meets the threshold for the new regulations to apply?

Oliver Dowden: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to raise that point. Essentially, the criteria will be if the purpose of the website is not in any way related to user-generated content, but that is just a small by-product. I used the example—it might be seen as slightly frivolous, but it is a way to illustrate it—of the online cheese retailer. Many small businesses, which are essentially retail or other activities, may allow reviews and so on. It is perfectly reasonable that we should say from the start that they are not subject to it. In practice, they would not be anyway because they will not fall within the codes of conduct. It is my experience with regulation that the more we can exclude from the beginning, the better, because it removes that worry, which frequently comes from small businesses that have one or two people, not massive compliance departments that can deal with it.

Alistair Carmichael: May I welcome the return of pre-legislative scrutiny? If ever there were an instance that required it, this is certainly it. Can I press the Secretary of State on the duty of care that he has outlined in relation to private messaging? From what he said a few minutes ago to the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), he seems to expect companies such as Facebook to police content and behaviour on apps such as WhatsApp. I do not see how they can do that without undermining the idea of end-to-end encryption, which is very important for people’s privacy and security. How will he do that in practice without relying on technology that has not yet been invented?

Oliver Dowden: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about privacy. Clearly, if it was up to individuals within those companies to identify content  on private channels, that would not be acceptable—that would be a clear breach of privacy. That is why we will rely on technology and AI and so on to identify trends that can be used to spot that kind of thing. I urge him to go along to some of these tech companies and see the advances that they are making, because it is very instructive.
As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), end-to-end encryption takes a whole other level of challenge. The Home Secretary and I are actively engaging with Facebook, for example, to discourage it from using end-to-end encryption unless it can put appropriate protections in place. Those conversations are ongoing.

Saqib Bhatti: Earlier this year I participated in a roundtable with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and I advocated for this, so I welcome the statement, especially the immediate removal of antisemitic material. There are those who would consider that this might be a slippery slope to an attack on our freedom of speech, but does my right hon. Friend agree that instead it creates a framework to ensure that our fundamental right to freedom of speech is protected from those who seek to corrupt or even abuse it ?

Oliver Dowden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are taking measures to guard against things such as antisemitic abuse, but we have taken two very clear decisions: first, we are protecting press and journalistic freedom; they will not be subject to this legislation for exactly the reasons he outlines. Secondly, we will ensure when we draft the legislation that it does not create a situation whereby Government or social media companies can start putting their worldview onto their output. There must be reasonable grounds for taking content down—they cannot just take it down because it does not cohere with their worldview.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Point of Order

Karen Bradley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I seek your advice? Further to the exchange between the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on the business statement earlier, I worry that the House may have been left with an unduly pessimistic impression of the prospects for further debate on the Government’s motion on virtual participation. All that would be required, as I understand it, is a motion from the Leader of the House governing debate and decision on the motion and any amendments. May I ask whether it is usual for the Government not to seek to conclude a debate of their own initiation in this way? Failing that, Madam Deputy Speaker, can you think of any other steps that could be taken to give the House a greater say in how it conducts its own affairs?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Member, who is Chair of the Procedure Committee, for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. I am sure that she will appreciate that I cannot give a running commentary on how the Government manage their business in the House, including when a debate is started but not brought to a conclusion. If the Government do wish to bring the motion back to the Floor of the House, I am sure the Leader of the House, in his usual courteous way, will give the House proper notice, and I am sure the Front Bench will have heard the point the right hon. Lady has made about the issue of virtual proceedings.
On the right hon. Lady’s last question, perhaps that is something that the Procedure Committee itself might like to look into. The only other thing I can say, of course, is that there are business questions on the business statement on Thursday, and that might be a way that she could raise it. I am not sure whether she has done a report, but the House can always debate Select Committee reports, so that may also be something that she might like to consider.
We will have a three-minute suspension to allow the safe exit and entry of right hon. and hon. Members.
Sitting suspended.

Bill Presented

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Elizabeth Truss, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Michael Gove, Secretary Alok Sharma, Secretary George Eustice, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart and Secretary Brandon Lewis, presented a Bill to make provision about the disclosure of information relating to trade.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 232) with explanatory notes (Bill 232-EN).

Virginity Testing (Prohibition)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Richard Holden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit virginity testing procedures; to make associated provision about education; and for connected purposes.
When I mention to hon. Members and my constituents that so-called virginity testing still takes place, their reaction has universally been the same: how? How is this medieval practice still taking place in modern Britain? It was brought to my attention recently by a superb piece of work by BBC “Newsbeat”, which uncovered the fact that it still takes place across the country, and it has been picked up more recently by The Sun, Sunday Express and The Northern Echo.
Those conversations usually move swiftly on to ask how the practice has been permitted all this time, especially when the World Health Organisation and the United Nations want to see it banned. President Macron and the French Government are also moving in that direction. Although the President of the Republic and I, along with many Members of this House, may disagree on some things, clearly this is another issue that highlights a common cause with our friends in Europe—we agree on it and should work together on it for the betterment of the world.
The United Kingdom has an enviable record on programmes to support women and girls worldwide, especially in education. They have been supported by former Prime Minister David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was in that post, and by Lord Hague as Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister when he was in that role and its current incumbent. A huge amount of work has been done in this area by my friend Baroness Sugg, who recently left her post. Recently, the work has been reaffirmed by the Prime Minister with his support for the education of women and girls worldwide. How then are we in a position where virginity testing still takes place in the UK? Britain has shown a strong lead on other issues internationally, such as female genital mutilation, and I pay tribute to Nimco Ali and others for their work in this area.
I suppose two questions need to be answered. First, does so-called virginity testing have any basis in science at all? Secondly, if it does, do we even want it? On the first question, the World Health Organisation is clear:
“As shown in a systematic review on virginity testing, the examination has no scientific merit or clinical indication”.
That could not be clearer: there is no scientific evidence at all. At a cost of between £150 and £300, according to the BBC investigation revealing the 21 clinics still doing the tests in this country, the practice should be banned on the basis of fraud alone.
The second, bigger question is what it says about us as a society if we allow the practice to continue. What does it say about our attitude towards what is acceptable to women? Women are not objects to be examined, tested and selected by men. Crucially, there is an impact of the tests on those affected. Reading from the WHO report, there are
“immediate and long-term consequences that are detrimental to…physical, psychological and social well-being... The harmful practice of virginity testing is a social, cultural and political issue, and its elimination will require a comprehensive societal response supported by the public health community and health professionals.”
I was delighted yesterday to receive an email from some of those public health professionals in the UK. It was from two nurses who work in sexual health and specialist sexual violence work, and they are working with the Royal College of Nursing to push for this change as well.
It is not just about the impact this has on individual people; it is also about the impact this has on us and what it says about us as a society. According to the WHO report again:
“It further reinforces socio-cultural norms that perpetuate women’s inequality, including stereotyped views of female morality and sexuality, and serves to exercise control over women and girls. Virginity testing violates well-established human rights…such as the right to be protected from discrimination based on sex”—
because it always happens to women—
“the right to life, liberty and security of person [including physical integrity]; the right to the highest attainable standard of health; and the rights of the child”,
because this often happens to children and young women.
This pseudo-scientific practice is also clearly linked to forced marriages and so-called honour killings. I am not quite sure what is honourable about people killing their own children. It should just be called the murdering of young people, but I am digressing. It is quite clearly a practice that needs to end. Ending this practice is our duty to women in this country and is our duty if we are to continue to show leadership globally on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Richard Holden, Mrs Maria Miller, Ms Nusrat Ghani, Meg Hillier, Sarah Champion, Sara Britcliffe, Nicola Richards, Fay Jones, Siobhan Baillie, Joy Morrissey Dehenna Davison and Jeremy Hunt, and present the Bill.
Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 233).

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that there is much debate outside the House about the provisions for the Christmas period and the relaxation of the coronavirus regulations. Am I right in thinking, given that the regulations governing Christmas were voted on explicitly by this House, that if there were any proposal to change them, that decision should not be one just for Ministers, but should be brought back to this House for a vote to take place on it before Christmas?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As I understand it, Ministers may well have the power to change the Christmas regulations without coming back to the House. They have taken that power. Obviously, he has expressed a point of view that it would be desirable if they were to come back, but as I understand it, they do have the power to vary them if they feel it is appropriate. If I find that that is in any way incorrect, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will inform him about any difference there might be from what I have said already.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the Minister, I should tell right hon. and hon. Members that, as they will see, we have one hour for this debate and a fair number of speakers, so it is likely that I will have to put a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of about four minutes.

After Clause 10 - Further exclusions from market access principles

Paul Scully: I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1K, 1L and 8M.
I am pleased that we continue to make positive progress on the Bill and that both Houses have continued to find agreement on a number of issues. In large part, this is due to colleagues from across both Houses continuing to have constructive and positive discussions with the Government. I want to put on record my thanks to colleagues on the Opposition Benches in this place, and the other place, in particular, for their engagement.
There are still a few outstanding areas, which have gone back and forth between the Houses, and I will outline the Government’s rationale for why we cannot accept the proposals as drafted. I will begin by speaking about the approach to exclusions taken by the Bill, which is a shared point across amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K, 1L and 8M. I will then address the specifics of the common frameworks amendments and wider market access exclusions.
As I said last week, and as my noble friends Lord Callanan and Lord True said in the other place yesterday, the Government have been clear throughout these debates that we agree that there is a need for an exclusions regime. However, it has to be carefully drafted and provide certainty for business. In drafting the Bill, and clauses 10 and 17 specifically, the Government have designed an exclusions approach that achieves a careful balance. Both the noble and learned Lord Hope and Lord Stevenson have narrowed the scope of their amendments and I thank them both for their continued dialogue with the Government on those. Our assessment remains, however, that the approach in both sets of amendments goes too far both in the breadth of exclusions that it would require the Secretary of State to create and the uncertainty that it would lead to. These amendments would be detrimental to the clarity, simplicity and certainty that the Bill intends to provide.

Jonathan Edwards: My reading of these amendments is that they are extremely watered down from what we would want. They essentially still give the Westminster Government a veto over the ability of the devolved Governments to legislate within devolved competency, so these are very meagre proposals. In refusing to accept even these proposals, is not the true nature of the Bill revealing itself? It is the British Government’s intention to use the Bill to impose uniformity over Wales and Scotland.

Paul Scully: The purpose of the Bill has been from the start and remains to give businesses certainty as we leave the transition phase—to have one single internal market.

Alan Brown: The Minister spoke about certainty for business. Can he give an example of something that he thinks would fall in these exclusions that would cause widespread panic in businesses in the UK?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman needs to speak to Scottish businesses more to see that they are concerned. They want to have the Bill in place to have the certainty, with 17 days to go until the end of the transition phase.
It is important to reiterate that the common frameworks are processes, not outcomes, and therefore broad exclusions are not suitable in this legislation. That leads me to amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K and 1L. The common frameworks programme facilitates a conversation about a common approach and thus provides for consensus-based decision making in sectoral areas of the economy. However, it is neither the purpose nor in the purview of common frameworks to determine whether matters should or should not be in the scope of the market access principles. It is only right that the UK Parliament and parliamentarians from across the UK have the final say on this matter.
The Government also believe that the system that they have designed creates a proper balance between the independent operation of devolved powers and the automatic application of the principles that protect the market and give certainty.

Bill Cash: My hon. Friend has quite properly said that it is a matter for Parliament to make these judgments. As Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would come before my Committee. The Standing Orders quite clearly give us the right to examine questions relating to matters that are politically or legally important, and to report to Parliament accordingly. The problem that we have is that he has declined to do so three times in response to our written requests, and now this morning I have heard that he is not going to appear before the Committee. Would the Minister be kind enough to take that back where it belongs?

Paul Scully: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have heard the message from the Chair of the Committee and his clear steer. It has been said many times in this House and in the other place, but it is worth stating again the Government’s commitment to the common frameworks programme. We attach enormous value to the forums that they provide for collaborative working with the devolved Administrations.

Pete Wishart: The Minister talks about consensus and involving the devolved Administrations. This is the opposite of consensus and agreement; it is imposition and constraint. These Lords amendments were his last chance to get this right. He has failed to do so. Will he now impose his will on the devolved Assemblies of the United Kingdom and force this Bill through the House?

Paul Scully: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I can force my will through both this House and the other place. What we have done throughout is to seek to collaborate. We continue to seek to collaborate on both the common frameworks and the internal market as we move forward. I hope that the Scottish Government will come with us on that journey, but the common frameworks process is just that—a process for agreeing and managing policy divergence in a variety of specific policy areas. As such, the programme is primarily concerned with ways of working, rather than determining policy outcomes.
The common frameworks programme will put in place durable arrangements for the intergovernmental working between the Government and the devolved Administrations in the policy areas covered by individual common frameworks. Those clearly defined ways of working will lend themselves to the common frameworks programme, and the individual common frameworks of which it is comprised are being considered as part of the business as usual discussions that will take place in our future intergovernmental relations infrastructure, and will benefit accordingly. Our intention is that these mechanisms for sector-specific co-operation will allow for coherent policy making between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in those policy areas. I therefore ask the House to disagree with amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K and 1L, and to vote instead to provide certainty for businesses.
Amendment 8M would cut across the Government’s objectives, and leave businesses exposed to new burdens and barriers. Despite a reduced list of aims, very broad areas of public policy could be excluded from the market access principles. Alongside the problems posed by the areas suggested for exclusion, there is a more fundamental issue with the approach taken. To be excluded under the approach proposed in the amendment, a requirement must only “make a contribution to” the achievement of one of the aims from the list, meaning that a policy need only have a tangential relationship to a social policy objective to be taken out of scope. The amendment would also lead to uncertainty as to when the market access principles apply, not least by a very unusual use of the term “proportionate”. It would fall to the courts to determine the relative extent to which different policies meet one of the aims, with no consideration of the burdens introduced. This will not deliver the certainty that business needs.
In addition, I want to stress one point that I feel has sometimes been overlooked. Market access principles do not prevent the devolved Administrations from introducing innovative policies designed to meet their own goals and objectives, including those relating to the environment and public health. They can do so in the context of mutual recognition, which is necessary to protect the free flow of goods around the UK. Without this, we would see a decrease in consumer choice, increased prices and additional costs for businesses. I do not believe that anyone in either House would support such an outcome, nor is it in the interests of business or our constituents. I have constantly heard claims in this House and the other place that the Bill would prevent charges on single-use plastics in Wales, for example. That is categorically not true, as the Government have repeatedly made clear across both Houses.
Manner of sales policies, which have typically been the most innovative types of policies, will not be impacted by the market access principles, as long as they do not discriminate and are not designed artificially to circumvent mutual recognition. This covers innovative policies such as plastic bag charging and minimum unit alcohol pricing. The Bill is also clear that the devolved Administrations would no longer need to notify and justify new measures to the EU Commission when they want to innovate and try new policies. What they will not be able to do is erect harmful and unwanted trade barriers between other parts of the UK. I therefore call on the House to support the Government and disagree with amendment 8M.
I end by saying that the other place, as is their right as a revising Chamber, asked the Government and the House to reflect on their approach. The Government have carefully considered the arguments put forward by hon. Members, right hon. Members and Lords across both Houses, and we have come to agreement on reasonable proposals in some areas. However, the Government cannot agree to these amendments as they stand.
I appreciate the constructive approach that peers in the other place have taken in discussions with Government, and we will continue to engage and find common ground. However, I am afraid that these amendments as drafted still do not provide the certainty that businesses need. I therefore call upon the House to support the Government and provide the clarity that our businesses need and, ultimately, preserve the UK internal market, which has been the engine of growth and prosperity for centuries.

Lucy Powell: I rise to uphold the Lords amendments that we are discussing today. It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box, given that I have been cooped up at home self-isolating, having been pinged. I was not pinged as part of this ping-pong though; I was in fact pinged by the coronavirus app, so I was not here last week. I put on record my thanks to my boss, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who deputised for me on these occasions last week—and did so incredibly well, I hasten to add.
As ever, my right hon. Friend made a strong case against the Government’s United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which has been poorly drafted from the outset. Without the Lords amendments we are debating today, the Bill poses a real threat to the future of our United Kingdom. Even though I was not here last week, it does feel a bit like we have been in suspended animation with this Bill. I appreciate there have been welcome changes in the meantime as a result of the Government dropping part 5, but it still, I am afraid, feels a bit like groundhog day. Here we are, yet again asking where the oven-ready deal is for Brexit. We are still asking the same questions on market access principles. We are still seeking the same recognition in the Bill of the devolution settlement through the common frameworks process. As with every other groundhog day where we have been debating this Bill, we will soon be hearing from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am sure that the shadow Minister agrees that the Bill is a disaster for devolution, but let us just focus on financial powers and state aids, because Labour abstained on those amendments in the Lords yesterday, despite there  being no meaningful safeguards in the Bill. How does she explain why her party in the other place saw fit to throw the Labour Welsh Government under the proverbial Tory bus, rather than seek even minimum safeguards to devolved powers in these areas?

Lucy Powell: I disagree with the point that the right hon. Lady makes. We have been making the weather on the Bill, both in this place and the other place, which I will come on to discuss. We have been seeking safeguards for consent from the devolved Administrations when it comes to financial assistance powers. Now that we are trapped in groundhog day, perhaps today and tomorrow will be the moment when the Government listen and take on board some of the amendments from the other place.

Bill Cash: The question of state aids very much lies at the heart of much of these debates. Does the hon. Lady accept that the EU state aid rules are a racket? I know very well the areas around Sheffield, Yorkshire and the midlands, where the coal and steel communities were destroyed, effectively, by the application and the discrimination that was made against—[Interruption.] And in Scotland. Does she accept that is why we need our own sovereign state aid rules, as I said yesterday on the Floor of the House?

Lucy Powell: It would be really nice if the Government used the powers that they already have, let alone those that it will soon acquire, to invest once and for all in British industry and British manufacturing. I am afraid that the Conservative Government do not have a great record when it comes to supporting our industrial heartlands, and that is plain for everyone to see.
I hope the Government will take on board the amendments from the other place, especially those in the name of Lord Hope and Lord Stevenson, which have received clear support on each occasion.
In normal times it would be Christmas party season—I am sure we will debate that again at some point—but the Government’s hokey-cokey on the Bill really needs to end. We had part 5 in; now we have part 5 out. We were told the Bill would create a thriving internal market that would strengthen the Union and keep Scotland in, yet the reality is that it could lead to Scotland being out—something that Members on both sides of the House do not want to happen. The Government have been shaking it all about with the legislative games they have been playing in respect of the Bill, and I am not sure that has been good for anybody. I really hope that we can now see the end to some of these shenanigans.
On the amendments, I will not rehearse the arguments: we have heard them put eloquently by their lordships and Members of this House on previous occasions. [Interruption.] Sorry, did somebody want to intervene? Or is the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) just trying to sledge me from behind? Just the usual.

Joanna Cherry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lucy Powell: Yes, I will give way, if the hon. and learned Lady has something she wants to say.

Joanna Cherry: I have got something useful to say: why did the Labour party abstain on the amendment in the House of Lords that would have re-reserved state  aid? Devolution is Labour’s baby—it was the late Donald Dewar who devolved state aid—so why did her party abstain on that? I think the people of Scotland would like an answer.

Lucy Powell: We have worked incredibly hard to maintain the devolution settlement through the Bill; that is not something that the hon. and learned Lady’s party want to do. The SNP wants to use measures in the Bill to break up the Union and seek independence in Scotland. That is not something that we agree with. We have tabled amendments and voted on them to ensure that the devolution settlement in this country is respected, and I hope that the Government will continue to talk to us about that.
We welcome the Government concessions so far and are hopeful that with some more good will we can get some more recognition of common frameworks in the Bill in these late stages of ping-pong. The Lords amendments to strengthen the common-frameworks approach and fair access to the market are good ones that we will vote to uphold today. I am grateful to Ministers and Lords colleagues, especially Lord Hope and others, for their continued engagement on this issue, because there is a lot of agreement between us. Ministers are rightly proud of the common frameworks process, which has brought about a number of areas of agreement on standards and market access because it involves the Government working with the devolved Administrations. It is an approach that both Front-Bench teams agree on.
We also agree—unlike the SNP—that the UK Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of the internal market, and we agree that no one nation should be able to frustrate that process, that all must act in good faith before the UK Parliament intervenes, and that safeguards should be in place to make sure that that is the case. It really feels to me like the Government could move further on this issue, because there is a huge amount of common ground. We need to see in the Bill a recognition of the common frameworks process and the devolution settlement that it represents, which is why I hope and expect that in returning the Bill to the other place today, the Government will introduce some final amendments along those lines. If they do so, they could receive broad support. It did not need to take quite so many iterations and pleas from both Houses, had the Government not taken such a hostile, blunderbuss approach with the Bill in the first place.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lucy Powell: No, I am afraid I will not; I am finishing.
I sincerely hope that the Government will reflect on that approach in future.

Bill Cash: I have already made my point about the European Scrutiny Committee. I would now like to turn quickly to the issues that face us in these negotiations, because what is going on in the Bill is mirrored by the negotiations. We have not yet had a draft treaty text in black and white. We need to see it. We wish the negotiators well. As far as I am concerned, along with my colleagues who support my propositions, it is essential that we get this right, because it is about our national interests and the future of this country.
Under article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol, the UK is forced to align to a dynamic list of EU state aid rules “as amended or replaced” in the future. The UK is not given any mechanism to address concerns about subsidies granted by EU member states to EU companies. This system is both unilateral and controlled by the EU alone. It is a racket. Under article 12 of the protocol, enforcement and supervision power is granted to the EU Commission and the European Court of Justice so that the UK-EU dispute resolution system, which is within the framework of the Joint Committee—the Committee is supposed to be run by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who I wish well, if he can only get this right; we will wait and see—would not be impartial, for only the EU’s Court would judge disputes, contrary to international practice. That means requiring the UK to follow current and future EU state aid rules made by the European Commission by an undemocratic vote in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors, with no transcript and without our even being at the seat of the Council. That is a direct infringement of UK sovereignty.
State aid rules under EU law are much wider than traditional subsidies and include anything conferring effectively a competitive advantage. They include tax, tax rules, tax reliefs, taxation measures for particular sectors or undertakings, bank bail-outs, gas tariffs for horticulture, structure of airport landing fees, private health insurance, the issuing of carbon trading emission certificates for free and failing to follow public procurement procedures—the list is endless.

Sammy Wilson: I am glad that the hon. Member has highlighted the role that the EU would have in state aid, not only in Northern Ireland but in Scotland, Wales and England where those firms have any connection with Northern Ireland. Does he therefore find it surprising that, while Opposition parties have been complaining about state aid rules not being devolved to them, they are quite happy to have the EU plunder through any support given to industries in their own country?

Bill Cash: They do not have a clue. They are going to get clobbered—they really will—and they do not get it. They just want to go on about devolution without regard to the effect that all this will have. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
The Bill itself defines aid with reference to EU law—it refers to article 107 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This is something that we will be affected by, because that amendment is not sufficient to enable us to maintain our sovereignty on all the matters relating to state aid rules. I look to the Prime Minister, I look to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I look to the Government and the negotiators to get this right. This is the moment to do it. We are at a crucial moment. I trust the Prime Minister. I believe he will deliver. He said he will, and we will hold him to that promise.
It would go against UK national interest to accept EU demands of agreeing to legally binding commitments to mirror the EU state aid regime, given that EU state aid rules are created on the basis of objectives of common interest of EU member states, which no longer includes the UK, and are tested by the Commission on  the basis of compatibility criteria that it has developed. They are non-binding guidelines, and therefore they can be changed at will. Under article 132 of the protocol and article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, provisions of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol referring to EU law or to EU law concepts or provisions are to be
“interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
That duty continues beyond the end of the transition period on 31 December and includes European case law handed down after the end of that period.
There is a real problem here. This is down to the negotiators as well as to those who are responsible for this Bill. We are faced with a very difficult situation, which impinges on our sovereignty and on our necessity to avoid, indeed to prevent, EU state aid rules from continuing to apply to the United Kingdom. This is a crucial moment in our economic, political and constitutional history. We must maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That is the message that I send to the Government and I trust that the Government and the Prime Minister will deliver it.

Rosie Winterton: This is what is going to happen. This debate has to finish at 3.10. I want to bring in the Minister at 3.06 to wind up. A lot of hon. and right hon. Members have been sitting in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate. If others come in and intervene, it does take time from those who have been trying to participate and have put their names down to participate. Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, I have to say that I will now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes and, with that, I still may not get everybody in, so if colleagues want to take fewer than three minutes, I am sure that it would be appreciated by others.

Drew Hendry: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my utmost to whizz through what I can here.
We welcome the Lords amendments seeking to protect both the devolved settlements and the policy divergence across the nations of the UK, but we also know that the Prime Minister and his Tory Government simply detest devolution. All pretence otherwise has been swept away by this Bill, as it puts into action the casual contempt that they have.
The Prime Minister, as we know, believes that devolution is a disaster. Well, we think the same about him. Last night, however, in the Lords, Labour opened the door for the Tories, as they hollowed out devolution, withdrawing support for Lord Thomas’s amendments that challenged the UK Government’s clauses on direct spending in devolved areas. Equally disappointing was Labour’s abstention on the vote for the amendment of Baroness Llandaff to halt the brazen power grab on re-reserving state aid. This is not currently reserved. It is not listed in the reserved powers under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. It is a devolved power being grabbed back, along with the measures in this Bill in place to overrule decisions taken in Scotland.
I have been quoting absolutely committed Unionists in the other place throughout this debate, and I am grateful to be able to quote them again today. Lord Thomas said:
“The power to control state aid is not reserved. If it were, these amendments would be unnecessary…I ask why the UK Government would not work together with them, consult them before the Bill was produced and try to find a common solution…I fear it is an example of Westminster saying that it knows best, rather than working with the devolved Administrations.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1486.]
But once again, the Labour Front-Bench team took weak words from the Government as assurances and chose to abstain on that important measure.
Lord Stevenson’s amendment alters schedule 1 so that environmental standards and public health are exempt from market access principles. He warned the UK Government not to make
“the market access principles, which operate automatically, too narrow and too prescriptive. That would fatally undermine the opportunities for devolved Administrations to diverge”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1457.]
Baroness Bennett highlighted that much leadership on climate change has actually originated from the devolved Governments. Lord Hope explained that his amendments seek to ensure that the UK Government’s commitment to market access principles do not undermine the UK Government’s commitment on the common frameworks. On policy divergence, he warns:
“As the Bill stands, a measure that gives effect to an agreed decision to diverge can be ignored by traders bringing goods in from other areas. This undermines the opportunity to diverge, rendering it worthless and ineffective.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1446.]
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town provided this summary:
“When the case for Brexit was all about ‘taking back control’, we failed to understand that the Government meant taking control to themselves, even over issues that were fully devolved.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1447.]
Time and again, across all the nations of the UK, across all parties and none, and across all the affected industries, trade bodies, academia and the legal profession, this Tory Government have been told that the Bill grabs power from devolution and places it here in Westminster. The Bill allows UK Ministers to control spending in devolved areas of economic development, infrastructure, cultural activities, regional development, education, water, power, gas, telecoms, railways, health, housing and justice. The people of Scotland did not vote for the Tories to make these decisions at Westminster. Madam Deputy Speaker, you are far too young to remember the last time the people of Scotland did that, although your grandparents might just have—but only just!
This Bill was born bad to the bone, setting to break international law and break devolution. The Government have been forced to drop some of it, but it remains an aberration and continues its assault on devolution, Scottish public services and public life. The Scottish public, unlike this Government, are listening and watching. They will choose their own path to protect their Parliament and democracy in the near future.

Wendy Chamberlain: So here we are again. I am glad that the Lords have continued to press their points on the common frameworks and the impact of the Bill on the devolved Administrations. The Lords seem to understand that the Bill poses a great threat to the devolution settlement, so I cannot understand why the Government do not even accept the damage that this Bill has caused in the devolved nations. We are  told by the Minister that it is not a political Bill. It is almost laughable. I wish the Government would just be honest with us. If they want to have a debate about the merits of devolution, many Members, not just on this side of the House, would be willing to argue in its favour. The Minister would also do well to remember that it was not the Scottish National party that brought about devolution in Scotland in the first place.
A case in point of the Government’s failure to own up to the impact of this Bill on devolution can be seen with the amendments that have been brought by the Lords on the common frameworks. Last week, I raised the question of what the Bill was for, in situations where common frameworks were already in place. I again ask the Minister to address that question. There is a huge hole in the Government’s argument, and they have left that question unanswered. There is also a real question about the interaction of the Bill with any potential EU trade deal, and I urge the Minister to address this. If we reach agreement with the EU on regulatory standards, which I hope we do, what will become of those clauses of the Bill on standards and frameworks? Will they ever come into effect, or will they become obsolete, with future standards being the subject of regulatory alignment with the EU? If the answer is the latter, I hope the Government will reflect on what this has all been for, and whether it has been worth it.
The Bill had two main aspects. The first was the part that broke international law, which was removed last week. That part of the Bill has resulted in huge damage to our international standing. It was reported this weekend that the serious mistrust sown as a result of those clauses has been a significant barrier to getting the trade deal that the Government claim they want. It has caused huge disquiet among our allies, including President-elect Biden. All that, for clauses that will never even reach the statute book.
Then we have the parts of the Bill that impact the devolution settlement. Those clauses will reach the statute book, but if there is a deal, it is likely that they will have no practical effect. However, the damage has already been done. This has caused deep dismay to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and given those SNP Members sitting around me grist to their mill. Congratulations! This is what you might call a PR nightmare for the United Kingdom and for the Union. Although in many respects it is already too late, I urge the Minister to accept the Lords amendments and finally deliver some form of limited consensus on this Bill.

Deidre Brock: Most of us here in the Chamber recognise that Brexit is an exercise in self-harm, and this Bill is an attempt to ensure that no one escapes that harm, no matter how sensible they are. No one will be safe from English Government decisions—and they will be English Government decisions because, as Professor Michael Keating notes in his excellent paper on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill:
“In the UK, England has 85 per cent of the population so…it will be English standards, set by the UK Government, that prevail.”
So no one will be safe from the English Government’s decision to impose lower safety standards on food, electrical appliances or kids bikes, or on personal protective  equipment for the NHS that has been produced by some ministerial crony with no experience in that field at all.
These Lords amendments, which are sadly ever-diminishing in strength, will none the less provide some small protections, because the Bill as it stands allows a Prime Minister sitting in Downing Street to casually cast aside the concerns of the Scots and the Welsh as he sells out safety for the sake of some second-rate trade deal. Consumer protection is being discarded by the scorched-earth shenanigans being pursued by this UK Government. Perhaps it is more fire sale than scorched earth, with the protections that consumers—our constituents—value so highly being sold so cheaply.
Farmers already know that their livelihoods are being thrown into the gutter by the abandonment of any pretence of protecting food standards. They know that England’s shift from farm subsidies for food production will adversely affect England’s farmers and indirectly threaten Scotland’s ability to support farmers. We all know that the courts will be busy with a procession of spivs seeking to remove protections so that they can make cash. What we can see will be disastrous; what we cannot yet see may be even worse.
The Governments of Scotland and Wales know that the Bill spells danger for the citizens of their countries. The Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have similarly made it clear that it is not acceptable; both Parliaments withheld legislative consent and made it clear that it will be damaging to them and to the people they serve.
The Lords amendments bring some—just some—semblance of decency to the Bill, some recognition of the political landscape across these islands, and some indication that there are differing politics in the different nations. They allow a mechanism for divergence from the centralised control of market forces and the lowest common denominator approach that the Government have taken. The institution of a framework for agreeing divergence of standards would at least allow some hope of protection being maintained and of avoiding bleached chicken and GM crops. I suspect that will be a weak protection, but any protection against the vagaries of a windblown Prime Minister and Government would be a step in the right direction.

Alan Brown: The Lords have tried to improve the Bill, but it has been subject to only minor improvements. I wish that, during ping-pong, the Lords had done double insistence and brought down the whole rotten Bill. That is what is really needed—for it to go away and be brought back in a completely different form.
It is no wonder that the Government have been so pig-headed about rejecting these amendments. As we have heard, last night in the Lords, Labour—the self-styled party of devolution—gave up the key fundamentals and principles of devolution. It gave up on direct spending and on state aid, which drives a coach and horses through the whole devolution settlement. It gives Westminster carte blanche to do what it wants in Scotland and Wales, where there is a Welsh Labour Government. Labour has given up on its own Government in Wales.
When summing up in last night’s debate, Lord Thomas said that the one thing he was holding on to was the thought of
“the catastrophic result for our union if the Government did not adhere to the principles that have been explained”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1480.]
Basically, he hopes that the Tory Government will do the right thing. If not, that will bring down his precious Union. It seems that Labour is now relying on this right-wing Tory Government to do the right thing with the precious Union—good luck there.
On Lords amendment 1F, the Government have already refused to adhere to the common frameworks principle and enshrine that in the Bill as a way for the devolved nations to co-operate. The amendment massively waters down that principle, but it would prevent divergence on harmonised rules that have been agreed through the common frameworks. Why do the Government want to reject that? If there is agreement between the nations, and common frameworks with agreed rules and regulations, why do the Government reject that that is something to be protected? That tells us everything we need to know about what they think of devolution.
It has been said many times, but it is worth repeating. The Prime Minister has said:
“A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde.”
Who is kidding who if we think that this Tory Government, under that Prime Minister, are suddenly going to spend lots of money in Scotland and Wales for our benefit? It is a joke and it undermines their whole attitude to devolution.
On state aid and Lords amendment 8M, why do the Government want to reject protection of environmental standards and of public health? Why should those things be excluded from the simple protection of state aid? Again, that tells us all we need to know about what they think of devolution. What Lord Thomas says is going to happen: the Union will end.

Joanna Cherry: I support the Lords amendments because they seek to protect the devolved settlements and also policy divergence across the United Kingdom. Lord Hope’s amendment attempts to salvage the common frameworks process and to prevent this UK Government from giving themselves the power to override policy divergence in devolved areas. As Lord Hope himself said:
“It was because of devolution that the common frameworks process, and the opportunity for policy divergence, was instituted with the encouragement of the UK Government in the first place. Their support for that process must involve support for policy divergence too.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1446.]
He is quite right. Lord Stevenson’s amendment exempts environmental standards and public health from market access principles. In so doing, it also seeks to protect policy divergence. As Baroness Bennett pointed out in the Lords, the smaller nations of the United Kingdom have often led the way on environmental policy divergence and it would be a shame if that was to stop.
I am speaking with a sense of weariness and inevitability because we have all been here before and we all know what is going to happen today. We know that these amendments will be defeated by a Tory majority that does not represent the political reality on the ground in  Scotland, or indeed Wales. Once more, the Minister will get to his feet and mouth meaningless platitudes about speaking to the devolved Administrations. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. Scotland did vote for devolution. It is anti-democratic that Brexit is being used to undermine devolution, and it is happening in breach of all the promises that were made to no voters in 2014, including the infamous vow, which included a promise from all three parties that the Scottish Parliament, as well as getting extensive new powers, would have the final say on spending in all devolved matters.
It is therefore a really sad state of affairs that the official Opposition could not field a single Back Bencher to speak up for devolution today. I know that they only have one hon. Member in Scotland, but they are not always averse to putting forward MPs from other parts of these islands to opine on Scottish affairs. Their no-show here today is not surprising, though, given that their colleagues in the Lords sat on their hands yesterday with regard to amendments seeking to keep state aid a devolved matter and Lord Thomas’s amendment challenging the Government’s clauses on direct spending in devolved areas. This is happening in direct breach of the vow that the then leader of the Labour party signed. But Labour does not care. It is happy to wheel out Gordon Brown to talk about federalism when independence is riding high, but when it comes to defending the existing devolved settlement, it is missing in action. This is a shameful state of affairs, and it falls to the SNP to defend devolution. We are doomed to fail, but that will simply further reinforce the case for independence.

Stephen Flynn: I have to start by expressing my deepest sympathies to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who has had to come to the House to try to defend the completely and utterly indefensible. [Interruption.] She says that she does not need my sympathy—well, she is getting it anyway. The reality is that the Labour party has once again turned its back on voters in Scotland. Last night Labour had the opportunity to stand up for the Scottish Parliament, to stand up for devolution and to block direct spending by this UK Government on devolved matters, and it sat on its hands. That is why there is a not a single Labour Back Bencher here in the Chamber this afternoon.
But my sympathies do not stop there: they also extend to the Minister himself. He talks about business certainty—business certainty! Four and a half years after the Brexit vote, after three Prime Ministers and two general elections, it is 17 days to the end of the transition period and the Minister could not name, in any way, shape or form, what the trade status of the United Kingdom is going to be. I pity them all. This is why the people of Scotland will choose a different path in the very near future.
Let us look at the Bill as it stands in a little more detail. It remains—it utterly remains—a blatant attack on devolution. For me, that is extremely frustrating, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), I am young enough to have lived almost entirely under the Scottish Parliament. I do not remember a time when there was not a Scottish Parliament. It has been a positive, progressive force for Scotland that we are proud of. I am not going to come to this Chamber and let a party that has not won an election in Scotland since the 1950s dictate to the Scottish Parliament  as to what will happen. It is a complete and utter shambles, and the Government should be utterly ashamed of that.
To finish, something that has been asked a lot in this Chamber—I have heard the shadow Scotland Office Minister say it as well—is, “Name a single power that is being grabbed. Name a single one”, but this is much bigger than that; this is a blatant, all-out attack on devolution itself. It seeks to undermine the very premise of devolution. To prove that very fact, The Press and Journal just four days ago said:
“The Secretary of State has been very clear he wants to deal direct with local authorities”—
not just going beyond the Scottish Parliament or the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but going straight to the local authorities themselves. That is absurd and a blatant attack on devolution, and we will not stand for it.

Tim Farron: I am overwhelmed by a sense of déjà vu, with the Labour Front Bench getting more grief than the Treasury Front Bench, as back in the day. I am also overwhelmed with a sense of déjà vu because I feel a great sense of this Government being in the same place—in my heart, in my mind—as the European Commission once was. Back in the days when we were not little Britain, I remember feeling enormous frustration and anger with the European Commission when it would do stupid things, in particular with agriculture, playing into the hands of separatists who only wanted the end of our relationship with the European Union.
I feel exactly the same about this Government now playing into the hands of my friends and colleagues around me on the SNP Benches—to whom this is music to their ears—by undermining the Union and being cloth-eared in the process. The Minister has had every chance to accept Lords amendments and to do what he can to stand behind the integrity of the Union and of the devolution settlement.
I have another great concern. I mentioned agriculture a minute ago, and what is critical in the race to the bottom that is built into the Bill when it comes to standards of farming, animal welfare and the environment is something that is not restricted to the Bill alone; it is something that the Government are repeating in other areas of their approach. We have seen the failure of the Government to accept proposals from my party and others that the high standards of British animal welfare and our environmental standards should be written into all new trade deals, but those were refused at every turn—clearly preparing the way to sell out farmers in all corners of the United Kingdom at the first chance the Government get in any trade deal.
At the same time, although most of us in this House agree with the Government’s direction in terms of the English changes to farm payments—from basic payments to the environmental land management scheme—the plan has been to underfund the scheme and to bodge it, getting rid of the basic payments before the new payments are in place, therefore killing off English family farms, which are the unit that allows us to have high-quality animal welfare and environmental standards. All those things together paint a picture of a Government who have lost touch with the countryside and with agriculture, and are prepared to set out a range of policies—almost  a manifesto, a catalogue, of attacks on British farming—that undermine our standards, animal welfare and the quality of our produce, and to sell our farmers down the river.
I am proud of the quality of British farming, throughout these islands, and I want the standards that are the highest in any nation to be the highest across all four. I would love the Government to learn from the mistakes of the European Commission—not to play into the hands of separatists, but to make sure that they defend our Union and the devolution settlement.

Alison Thewliss: We are clear on the SNP Benches that Scotland does not want this Bill and that it overrides powers within the Scotland Act 1998. The explanatory notes state:
“The Bill’s provisions replace the existing limits on the effect of legislation made in exercise of devolved legislative or executive competence”.
The Bill is clear about taking new powers.
We know that divergence will not be tolerated, because it is not tolerated currently. In immigration policy, Scotland has been refused any degree of control. On the control and sale of fireworks, we have been ignored in our request to regulate fireworks. In the treatment of drug law, an area close to my heart and that of my constituents, despite crying out for years in the face of a drugs-death crisis—a crisis which last year saw 1,264 souls lost—the UK Government say that Scotland will not be permitted, not allowed, not trusted to take further action to prevent the deaths of our citizens. Scotland accepts responsibility in the areas where we can act, and we know we must do more, but we do it with our hands tied behind our back. I do not trust this Government to behave any differently when they grasp with grubby hands Scotland’s powers over economic development and infrastructure, such as our water supply, our transport, our health or our education. The only way to protect the powers of our own Parliament is for Scotland to vote for independence.

David Linden: It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). Like other hon. Members on the SNP Benches, I welcome the amendments from their lordships to try to protect the devolved settlements from policy divergence across the UK. However, it strikes me as a rather bizarre state of affairs that we are desperately relying on the unelected and democratically illegitimate House of Lords to defend devolution and democracy. That irony is not lost on me, but I will return to that just a little bit later.
I rise today to speak in favour of Lord Hope of Craighead’s amendment on the common framework; I remain enormously frustrated that the Government are opposing it in this House in order to protect their grubby power grab on the devolved legislatures. Of course, that should not come as a surprise to the House: not only did this British Tory Government campaign against devolution in 1997, but they actively loathe it even now, and make no attempt to hide that view.
We have a Prime Minister who told his Back Benchers that devolution was “a disaster” and that devolving power was Tony Blair’s “biggest mistake”, which will  certainly come as a surprise to those of us who opposed the war in Iraq. However, it is not just the Prime Minister who holds that anti-devolution view; it runs all the way through this Bill. The Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council is also on record as saying that,
“constitutional tinkering has weakened our Parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom”—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 989.].
I would argue that the Government do not need much help with that, frankly.
We are where we are, and that is why I support the amendment to the Bill made by Lord Hope. We should not be surprised by the Tories’ anti-devolution rhetoric, but I must say I was surprised and disappointed to see the British Labour party withdraw its support for Lord Thomas’s amendment, which challenged clauses on direct spending in devolved areas. Perhaps it is a sign of just how out of touch the Labour party has become that Lord Stevenson, speaking for his party in the Lords last night, said that,
“the points made by the Minister on the shared prosperity fund were sufficient to ensure that we do not need to go back over this again. It is not our view, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, that we need to divide the House on this issue again.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1476.]
It is hard—really hard—to imagine a giant such as Donald Dewar, for example, uttering those words in Westminster, but they reaffirm my belief that this place and its two biggest parties cannot be trusted to protect our devolved institutions. Perhaps that is why, yesterday, we saw the 16th poll in a row showing majority support for Scottish independence. Alongside my colleagues this afternoon, I will vote for the amendments, but the only way to truly empower the Scottish Parliament is with independence, not with Lords amendments. Scottish independence is only a case of when, not if, and I suspect the Minister knows that too.

Paul Scully: I am grateful for the forbearance of colleagues who have brought this debate to a relatively short end. I will not detain them for too long; I just want to thank everybody who has spoken today.
It is a shame that a number of the speeches veered from the amendments that we are considering today, but it was somewhat predictable. We are debating devolution, but in reality a number of hon. Members talked about independence, without using the word—I think in SNP bingo the word independence came up only once. The sentiment was that they are using this Bill to further their ambitions for independence, rather than concentrating on respecting the devolved Administrations through devolution and common frameworks.
We have before us today’s amendments, which the Lords considered and voted on, yet much of the debate was about yesterday’s amendments and an attack on the Labour party. I appreciate the opening words from the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), that it is important that we keep on talking to get this important Bill through, so that we can give businesses certainty.

David Linden: I do not want to intervene on this love-in of the Better Together alliance, but the Minister spoke earlier about using the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to divide the United Kingdom. Actually,  opinion polling has shown a clear trajectory in terms of Scottish independence—16 polls in a row. Why does he think that is?

Paul Scully: I am not sure which amendment the hon. Gentleman is speaking to, but I note that the last poll was 52:48, which I am sure he will talk about; it seems to be a figure that keeps coming up.
Why do we need to give businesses certainty? This is not just about Northern Ireland, Wales and England; it is about Scottish business too. Some 60% of Scotland’s trade—more than £50 billion—is with the rest of the UK. Up to half a million jobs are dependent on that internal trade.

Drew Hendry: On that statistic about Scotland’s exports, will the Minister concede that 62% of manufactured exports from Scotland go outwith the UK, to the EU and the rest of the world?

Paul Scully: That refers to the 144,000 jobs, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would say, which were considered by the same institute that came up with the half a million jobs dependent on internal trade. He talks about the manufacturing trade; that is why we are better together as a United Kingdom. We have the whole gamut of skills, whether it is in manufacturing, services, culture, financial services or legal services—all those areas that we can provide as the UK which will make us a force to be reckoned with as we come out as one global Britain, with the opportunities that we will afford ourselves, in 17 days’ time.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Scully: I will not, because I need to bring my remarks to a close.
The Government will continue to be reasonable in discussions on the Bill. We have made great progress so far in both Houses on finding areas of agreement—on what brings us together as one UK as we look to leave. I appreciate the constructive approach that peers in the other place have taken in discussions with the Government. We will continue to engage and to find that common ground, but we assess at the moment that the amendments proposed by the other place continue to go too far and run counter to the certainty that the Bill provides and that businesses need.
As we have made clear before, this Bill is vital in preserving our internal market and continuing to provide certainty for businesses as we seek to recover from covid-19, prepare for the opportunities after the transition period and protect jobs. I therefore call on the House to support the Government’s motion.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1K, 1L and 8M.

The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 262.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1K, 1L and 8M.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1K, 1L and 8M;
That Paul Scully, Michael Tomlinson, Jo Gideon, Mark Fletcher, Gill Furniss, Lucy Powell and Drew Hendry be members of the Committee;
That Paul Scully be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Rosie Winterton: In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee
[Relevant documents: First Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Unfettered Access: Customs Arrangements in Northern Ireland after Brexit, HC 161, and the Government response, HC 783; Oral evidence taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 16 and 23 September and 2 December 2020, on Brexit and the Northern Ireland Protocol, HC 767.]

New Clause 1 - Act to have effect notwithstanding any international or domestic law

(1) The provisions of this Act have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent.
(2) In this section “relevant international or domestic law” includes—
(a) any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol;
(b) any other provision of the EU withdrawal agreement;
(c) any other EU law or international law;
(d) any provision of the European Communities Act 1972;
(e) any provision of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
(f) any retained EU law or relevant separation agreement law; and
(g) any other legislation, convention or rule of international or domestic law whatsoever, including any order, judgment or decision of the European Court or of any other court or tribunal.—(Sir William Cash.)
Brought up, and read the First time.

Bill Cash: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Provisions of Act to have effect notwithstanding inconsistency or incompatibility with international or other domestic law—
(1) The provisions of this Act have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent.
(2) Accordingly (among other things)—
(a) regulations under this Act are not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law (and section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply in relation to the making of regulations under this Act);
(b) all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which are, in accordance with section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law, and enforced, allowed and followed accordingly, cease to be recognised and available in domestic law, or enforced, allowed and followed, so far and for as long as they are incompatible or inconsistent with any provision of this Act;
(c) section 7C of that Act ceases to have effect so far and for as long as it would require any question as to the validity, meaning or effect of any relevant separation agreement law to be decided in a way which is incompatible or inconsistent with a provision of this Act; and
(d) any other provision or rule of domestic law that is relevant international or domestic law ceases to have effect so far and for as long as it is incompatible or inconsistent with a provision of this Act.
(3) Regulations under this Act are to be treated for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 as if they were within the definition of “primary legislation” in section 21(1) of that Act.
(4) No court or tribunal may entertain any proceedings for questioning the validity or lawfulness of regulations under this Act other than proceedings on a relevant claim or application.
(5) The period mentioned in each of the following provisions (standard time limits for seeking judicial review), or any corresponding successor provision, may not be extended under any circumstances in relation to a relevant claim or application—
(a) rule 54.5(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules in relation to England and Wales;
(b) section 27A(1)(a) of the Court of Session Act 1988 in relation to Scotland; and
(c) rule 4(1) of Order 53 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980 (S.R. (N.I.) 1980 No. 346) in relation to Northern Ireland.
(6) The jurisdiction and powers of a court or tribunal in relation to a relevant claim or application are subject to subsections (1) and (2).
(7) In section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, in subsection (5)—
(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (e); and
(b) at the end of the subsection insert “, and
(g) the provisions of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 (provisions to which this section is subject).”
(8) In this section—
“relevant claim or application” means—
(a) a claim for judicial review in relation to England and Wales,
(b) an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in relation to Scotland, or
(c) an application for judicial review in relation to Northern Ireland, where the claim or application is for the purpose of questioning the validity or lawfulness of regulations under this Act;
“relevant international or domestic law” includes—
(a) any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol;
(b) any other provision of the EU withdrawal agreement;
(c) any other EU law or international law;
(d) any provision of the European Communities Act 1972;
(e) any provision of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
(f) any retained EU law or relevant separation agreement law; and
(g) any other legislation, convention or rule of international or domestic law whatsoever, including any order, judgment or decision of the European Court or of any other court or tribunal, but does not include the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 1(1) of that Act);
“relevant separation agreement law” has the meaning given by section 7C(3) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
New clause 3—Treasury use of powers—
(1) The Treasury must, within four working days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report setting out the timeframe within which it will use the powers to make regulations conferred by—
(a) section 40A(2) of TCTA 2018;
(b) section 40B(1) and (2) of TCTA 2018;
(c) section 30A(4) of TCTA 2018;
(d) section 30B(1) and (3) of TCTA 2018;
(e) section 30C(5) of TCTA 2018; and
(f) section 5(2) of this Act.
(2) The Treasury must publish an annual report setting out how it has made use of the powers referred to in subsection (1).
(3) Each report under subsection (2) must include an assessment of—
(a) what considerations the Treasury made when deciding to use its powers, and
(b) the impact of the regulations on individuals and businesses throughout the UK, and specifically in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 43, at end insert—
“(4A) The Treasury must publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to the reliefs, repayments and remissions referred to in subsection (3)(b) within four working days of this section coming into force.”
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 4, line 24, at end insert—
“(5) The Treasury must publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to the reliefs, repayments and remissions referred to in subsection (4)(a) within four working days of this section coming into force.”

Bill Cash: The clauses before us are directly related to what was originally in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and they were there for a very good reason. They were there because it is absolutely essential that we maintain our sovereignty, and the decisions must be taken by Parliament, and should not be taken by the House of Lords, whose Members are unelected. We are the House of Commons, and that part of the House of Commons which is elected has a Government who were elected in December 2019, almost exactly one year ago. In that general election, it was made quite clear that the decision before the British people was effectively to be decided in line with what was decided in the referendum. There are therefore two things joining together, in conjunction with one another: the referendum in 2016, followed by a whole series of enactments of Parliament. That includes the decision on the notification of withdrawal, which was accepted by the Labour party and was voted through in the House of Commons by 499 to around 120. It is not as if anybody could say that the supremacy of Parliament was not made manifest in the light of the referendum.
There was then a series of other enactments, and we eventually ended up with a confirmation of Acts of Parliament, including the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed after the general election. Section 38 of that Act made it abundantly clear that we had the right to insist—as a matter of constitutional principle and through the enactment of an Act of Parliament—that the United Kingdom was sovereign, and, furthermore, that we would be allowed to override the withdrawal agreement. That was contained in section 38(2)(b), which specifically refers to section 7A and in turn therefore directly relates, through the use of the word “notwithstanding”, to the overriding direct effect. That is a very important point—a point that is conveniently overlooked by some people, who continually assert that somehow or other the Government have been out of order, breaking international law or breaking constitutional principles. But they never come forward with any arguments; as I said in a recent speech in the  House regarding the attitude of the House of Lords, they were basically strong on assertion and empty in argument.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us who could only vote for the withdrawal legislation because it contained clause 38 understood fully that it was a conditional agreement to the withdrawal agreement, because the EU always said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and we wished to see the full package before deciding whether to allow it to be untrammelled?

Bill Cash: Yes, indeed. I sometimes find that Lewis Carroll has some very useful ways of putting things. There was the famous exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty, in which Humpty Dumpty says: “Words mean what you choose them to mean. The question is who is to be master, that is all.” Words can be used in all kinds of different ways to try to justify propositions that are unsustainable.
I say with respect, but none the less very firmly, that in this particular case it is absolutely clear that when the decision has been taken by the British people—the voters—in the referendum and has then been endorsed by an Act of Parliament and a whole series of other Acts of Parliament, including section 38, it really is not down to the unelected House of Lords to resist it on the scale that they have, and to claim that they can override the House of Commons. We have just had a whole series of agreements and disagreements going backwards and forwards on the UKIM Bill alone.
As Lord Bingham made absolutely and abundantly clear in chapter 12 of his magisterial book “The Rule of Law”, it is for Parliament to make law and pass Acts of Parliament; it is not for the judges to intervene, to seek to make law and to impugn the sovereignty of Parliament. Anyone who wants to get the full flavour of it should read chapter 12 of “The Rule of Law”, because it is the most explicit and clear statement that one could possibly imagine.

Kevin Hollinrake: If section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 has such overarching reach, why are new clauses 1 and 2 necessary in this Bill?

Bill Cash: Because what section 38 does is reaffirm the capacity of Parliament to be able to make such provisions in other enactments should it be necessary to do so. Because of the complexity of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the issues it raises—for example, as I have said in a previous speech this afternoon, with respect to the Northern Ireland protocol itself—there remain a number of matters that are still subject not only to the negotiation over in Brussels going on right now, but to the operation of the internal market of this country. I support that Bill, but I still believe it was a mistake to withdraw the “notwithstanding” clauses, because I think we are going to find that we will need them and we may yet need to reintroduce them on a future occasion. However, it will be section 38, which is explicit with regard to the withdrawal agreement, that will give us the authority and the statutory basis for doing that, and the same applies to the provisions I am referring to here. With regard to this Bill, we had  expected that the “notwithstanding” clauses would be included in it and they were not, so I have taken the opportunity—in, one might say, my usual manner—to ensure that we have an opportunity to debate this issue today.
I now turn to the reasons why I am so clear in what I have said about state sovereignty in the context of international law. The United Kingdom as a state retains its sovereign right, and it was always capable of doing this, to withdraw from the EU. The EU is an international organisation; it is not a sovereign state. On the basis of state sovereignty, it would actually be contrary to the legal position under international law that the UK would require EU consent or agreement to leave the EU, but we do have article 50 and we did implement that in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
State sovereignty is paramount to international law. As has been said:
“If States were not sovereign, no international law would be possible”.
It is quite an interesting idea. International law would be impossible if states were not sovereign, because they combine together to create the circumstances in which it applies. Each state has internal supremacy over how governmental functions are run and is shielded from external interference without consent. The UK as a sovereign state has a right to withdraw from an international organisation, and this right is recognised by the EU treaties themselves. This is evident from the words of article 50:
“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”
It could not be clearer from what I have said and from what everybody knows, as they have been through this passage or on this journey, that we have been through enactment after enactment. Nobody could possibly say that we have not done it lawfully. It has been done completely in the sight of the world, and I am astonished that anyone would even consider that we had not done it in the proper manner—we have done so, lawfully and in accordance not only with our constitutional law but with international law. In short, the UK’s right to withdraw from the EU is approved and agreed by international law, and only limited by UK constitutional law and thus by our own discretion, which we have exercised.
Following the Brexit referendum, the United Kingdom exercised its sovereign right to leave the EU and, as far as I am concerned, I believe this cannot be disputed. It is quite clear that we have done what was required under our own constitutional requirements and also, in my judgment, with regard to the question of international law itself. That was confirmed, for example, by the German federal constitutional court in the Maastricht treaty constitutionality case—I am now speaking about the Germans’ view of this, but it is interesting to observe—in which it said:
“Because the German citizen entitled to vote exercises his right to participate in conferring democratic legitimacy on the institutions and bodies entrusted with the exercise of sovereign authority principally through the election of the German Bundestag,”—
this is the same point I was making about our voters being represented by our Members of Parliament who passed the enactments in question—
“that parliament must also decide what is to be done about Germany’s membership of the European Union, its continuance and development”.
In other words, the principle is a common one between us and the German constitutional court.
That is of great importance in our understanding the context in which we must have the right to legislate ourselves in accordance with what our voters expect of us. We are entitled to do that in relation to the UKIM Bill or the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, and we are entitled also to have a “notwithstanding” clause if we so decide. It is not for unelected persons—whether they are distinguished or otherwise, and whether they are numerous in the House of Lords or otherwise—to interfere with that.
The UK Parliament, being the supreme body in the British constitution, has the right to enact legislation inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement—I have already dealt with section 38—thereby explicitly reversing the direct effect option under article 4 of the withdrawal agreement. That is crucial, because article 4 says that, but for the fact that we are entitled to do that, it would have direct effect. That position has been set out on the UKIM Bill, which was published in September, and it was specifically stated that we would ensure that we had a “notwithstanding” clause. That has been unwisely removed, but we may come back to that on a future occasion.
The next question is, what is the position regarding the EU’s own attitude towards international law? I am afraid to say that it is guilty of recurring double standards. Article 3(5) of the treaty on European Union states:
“In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall…contribute to peace, security…and the protection of human rights…as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.”
But in the Kadi case, it was held that EU law is an autonomous legal order, meaning that in order for an international agreement to form part of EU law, it must not call into question the constitutional structure and values on which the EU is founded.
In the second Kadi case, the European Court of Justice, confirming its previous findings in the first case, ruled that the EU Courts
“must…ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all Union acts in the light of the fundamental rights forming an integral part of the European Union legal order, including review of such measures as are designed to give effect to resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.”
It is worth pointing out that the Security Council resolutions in question were adopted under chapter VII, which meant that those resolutions were adopted for the purposes of maintaining international peace and security and had to be carried out by members of the United Nations directly. Article 103 of the charter states:
“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
It is clear that our capacity as a sovereign nation is endorsed by the United Nations charter as well.
What is the position regarding the necessity of these “notwithstanding” clauses in principle? I have already explained the general power to override treaties, particularly  by reference to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. In the Miller case, a majority in the Supreme Court said that Parliament, in the exercise of its sovereignty, is free to legislate in any way it sees fit, including contrary to the UK’s international obligations, thus
“the sovereign power of the Queen in Parliament extends to breaking treaties”.
That was confirmed in a series of other cases, such as in Salomon, in EN (Serbia) and in the Attorney-General of Ontario v. Attorney-General of Canada. The Supreme Court has unambiguously stated that this power is a corollary of parliamentary sovereignty. I have already referred to what Lord Bingham said in chapter 12 of “The Rule of Law”, so I do not need to repeat that.

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend said a few moments ago that Parliament has a general power to override treaties. How would that work in the case of the free trade agreements that we have negotiated with other nations? Can we simply override those treaties at will if we do not like the findings of an investor-state dispute service?

Bill Cash: Interestingly, I made some reference to the principles that are under discussion in the current negotiations. Of course, we do not know the outcome of those negotiations as we speak—as I said in the previous debate, I wish them well—but it has to be made clear that, certainly as far as I and those of my friends who agree with me are concerned, one of the most crucial questions is that of state aid, because that issue is right at the heart of the discussions and negotiations this week. I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to assure the House that nothing in any treaty text or subsequent Act of Parliament will prevent the UK from having its own sovereign state aid rules, including on energy, so that we are not subjugated to EU state aid rules, nor to the European Court, given that the EU intends, as it has stated over the past week or two—in very bad faith, in my opinion—to impose and enforce its rules against us. Ultimately, of course, that would be done by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers, behind closed doors, without our even being at the table after 31 December. The fact is that we have to assert our sovereignty in the negotiations so that any treaty that emerges from them—if one does—must comply with the assertion of the sovereignty of this House, this country and this Parliament, and must at the same time apply whether in respect of direct or indirect effect.

John Redwood: Is it not also the case that the agreement with the European Union is muddled and contradictory? The EU has always said that it understands that the UK is going to be sovereign, so if this House simply asserts our sovereignty, as it can do, that is, in a way, our fair interpretation of the agreement.

Bill Cash: Yes, absolutely. Sovereignty is also a question of fact. I do not want to get into the intricacies of 15th century history, but there was a chap called Henry VII who made it abundantly clear that as far as he was concerned he won the battle of Bosworth and that was it. I do not think we need to pursue that one too much, because sovereignty is quite a simple thing when it comes down to it: it is called political will and legal arguments of the kind I am addressing.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am interested in my hon. Friend’s point about sovereignty over free trade agreements. In 2009, an American firm called Cargill was awarded around $90 million because Mexico had broken a free trade agreement with the United States by, in effect, banning soft drinks that were made with high-fructose corn syrup, putting Mexican producers at an advantage. Mexico acted unilaterally, with sovereignty; is my hon. Friend saying that Mexico was allowed to do that? That is not what the dispute-settlement service determined.

Bill Cash: I cannot speak for that dispute-settlement service and nor can I speak for the Joint Committee that is currently considering some of these matters. We do not really know exactly what is being decided in that Joint Committee, which is why I was concerned earlier to point out that I have asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to appear before my European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman and on which I have served for 35 years, so I have a little experience of how it operates. Under our Standing Orders, it is our task—our duty—irrespective of party politics, to examine matters of legal and political importance and report to the House, and we are doing that. Of course, we need evidence, and we need to have people to appear before us and give evidence, and sad to say, despite the fact that I have written four letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he has declined to appear in front of the Committee, although he seems to be happy to see the House of Lords equivalent Committee and also the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
Be that as it may, I have made the point, and sadly I cannot force the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to appear. It would, however, be extremely useful if he did, because then he would able to explain just exactly what he has agreed in the Joint Committee, of which we have only a smidgen of information. It would be a two-way advantage if he did it, and all I can say is that the position is as I have described it, and I am sorry about that. No doubt we will find out in due course.

Jim Shannon: I just want to clarify one matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can do that. When it comes to sovereignty and the free trade agreements that he and others have referred to, can he give me an educated guess on where Northern Ireland stands with sovereignty? Do we have the same freedom and the same rule of law across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or will Northern Ireland be treated differently?

Bill Cash: Provided the treaty itself, and therefore the Act of Parliament that follows from it, maintain the principles I set out in my question to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy yesterday, there is no question as to whether we will be entitled to exercise our sovereignty and to displace European Court jurisdiction and the EU laws, for example—there are many others—on state aid. We will be entitled to do so, but it is a matter of constitutional law and also, as I have explained, international law.
I am afraid that there has been a great deal of assertion that we are so-called potentially in breach of international law, but international law recognises the fact that a country can exercise its sovereign rights to defend its economic interests from a national point of view. In fact, Helmut Schmidt did precisely that in, I think, 1998 over the question of the deutschmark and the dollar. There are many examples, and we have not got time to go into them all today.
I will turn to some of the precedents just to illustrate the fact that it is not such a novel idea somehow or other to use a “notwithstanding” clause or formula, and that applies to all parties, whether that is the Labour party, the coalition, where the Liberal Democrats joined in and voted with us on these matters, or the Conservative party. For example, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 provides that the parts that diverge from treaty obligations—the language of the section was completely unambiguous—were “notwithstanding anything contrary” to those arrangements set out in the Act. The section was enacted to retaliate against the introduction of unitary tax systems adopted by certain states in the US, most notably in California. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) may know about that.
What I am saying is that such provisions are not exactly unusual. Indeed, in the Finance Act 2013, which was under the coalition, the Liberal Democrats went along with allowing Parliament to effectively write a blank cheque to interfere with international treaties—approximately 130 of them, in fact. That provision is still in force. No one questioned the Chancellor’s right to introduce any such legislation or, indeed, the lawfulness of the work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which still relies on it in combating questions relating to such arrangements.
Then there are other precedents. I shall stick to Finance Acts at this juncture as that is what we are dealing with in the context of this particular Bill, which is, of course, a finance Bill. Section 52 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1945 overrode aspects of the Ireland-UK tax treaty of 1926. I hope I may be allowed a slight smile here, as I look across the Irish sea and consider the position with regard to the Irish Government in relation to the “notwithstanding” clauses, because we actually did this in 1926. The Act was used as an example in a case involving Collco in which the court said that if the statute is unambiguous, its provisions must be followed even if they are contrary to international law. It could not be clearer. The Finance Act 1955 again overrode the Ireland-UK tax treaty. In the Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Collco Dealings, Viscount Simonds said, “The company has no rights under any agreement. Its rights arise from the Act of Parliament, which confirmed the agreement and give it the force of law.”
Section 59 of the Finance Act 2008 excluded UK residents from benefiting from provisions in respect of profits from the trade etc. Then there is the coalition arrangement under the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 where, again, the position was made entirely clear in accordance with the precedents.
Indeed, it is not just the UK, or even a party in the UK, that has been doing this over a period of time in its economic and national interests. An example from 2020  is the European Central Bank’s bond-buying scheme. In May 2020, the German constitutional court sought to override EU law and the Court of Justice, suggesting that the ECB’s public sector purchase programme was unconstitutional. Then there are the bail-outs. Every one of the bail-outs from 2010 to 2015 could justifiably be described as in breach of article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I will not read out the details, but I shall give some examples: the first Greek bail-out in 2010; the Irish bail-out in 2010; the Portuguese bail-out, the second Greek bail-out; the Spanish bail-out; the Cypriot bail-out; and the third Greek bail-out in 2015. There are so many examples—whether in the UK, or in relation to other member states, or, indeed, in relation to the EU itself—that have demonstrated that, when it comes to the question of sovereignty and the ability to override treaties, this is done quite often as a matter of course. I am not saying that it is done generally. I am not saying that it happens every week or every day. What I am saying, however, is that it happens and that it happens for good reasons which are directly related to the arguments on sovereignty which I gave at the beginning, and it is not for the unelected House of Lords to tell us. That is why, in this Bill, they would not have been able to do so because of the issue of financial privilege.
I am bringing forward these amendments. I shall decide as we proceed whether I will press them to a vote. I will leave it at that for the moment, because I am more than fascinated to hear the usual Europhile utterings of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) who is about to speak.

Pat McFadden: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I rise to speak to new clause 3 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and, with it, amendments 1 and 2, which are also in his name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. These amendments are pro-business and pro-compliance. They are motivated by trying to get as much information to the businesses affected by the changes in this Bill in as short a timescale as possible.
The Bill that we are discussing sets out a number of taxation changes, many of them as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. These measures will have an impact on businesses throughout the United Kingdom, but in particular, businesses in Northern Ireland and those who trade with them. In a recent evidence session for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, HMRC was asked how many new declarations there would be under the kind of system set out in the Bill. The official giving evidence said, to be fair, that it was a new system, so they could not be sure, but that there could be about 11 million new declarations a year. That is a sizeable additional amount of information that businesses have to publish.
The amendments we are putting forward this afternoon try to help those businesses to cope with the changes set out in the Bill. I should stress that nothing in these amendments alters the terms of the changes set out in the clauses or the purpose of the Bill. The Government have signed up to the protocol and we want to see them abide by the agreement they have made. There may be those in the Conservative party—in fact, there almost certainly are—who do not like the obligations that the  protocol entails, but we believe that the Government should stick by the commitments they have made. The changes in the Bill are largely, though not entirely, a consequence of that agreement.
However, many of the clauses in the Bill are enabling in their nature. They confer on the Treasury powers that are to be filled in at a later date. For example, clause 1 says that the Treasury may by regulations provide a definition of goods being imported into Northern Ireland that
“are at risk of subsequently being moved into the European Union.”
It goes on to talk about which duties shall apply in the case of these so-called at-risk goods. Very similar language is used in clauses 2 and 5 and a number of the schedules—that the “Treasury may by regulations” provide.
To be fair to the Minister and to the authors of the Bill, there is nothing unusual about a Bill taking enabling powers that are then to be set out in further detail in regulations that come after the Bill has passed its parliamentary proceedings, but what is unusual is the context and the timescale involved. The end of the transition period is in just 16 days and, in the middle of those 16 days comes the Christmas holidays, so the Government are asking businesses to absorb, prepare for and comply with a new series of taxation regulations that those businesses have not yet seen, and to do so over a two-week period coinciding with the biggest holiday of the year. And they are doing that at the end of a year in which the very same businesses have already faced unprecedented turbulence in the wake of a global pandemic.
The businesses concerned do not want to fall foul of regulations. They want to comply. They want to be able to get this right. Businesses in Northern Ireland and the trade bodies that represent them have put in enormous efforts over the past few years to try to prepare for this moment. Of course, they could have spent all that time and effort doing what they were set up to do, which is to provide goods and services to their customers, but the process of Brexit and the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, which are now enshrined in the Brexit withdrawal deal, have meant that a great deal of effort has had to go into trying to understand the trading and taxation rules that will kick in after the end of this year. So here we are with this Bill, with just over two weeks to go. With the best will in the world, how do the Government expect them to do this on this kind of timescale?
The purpose behind the amendments is very simple: it is, even at this late stage, to encourage the Government to get a move on. When I moved a similar amendment in Committee last week, the Minister said that guidance had been published in October, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the details of the regulations enabled by this Bill, which was published only last week.
The Minister cannot seriously be telling the House that everything covered by the Bill was dealt with in October, and there is nothing more to add. If that was the case, it would prompt the question as to why it was published only last week. The answer, of course, is that the Government wanted to use it to hold the threat of the kind of provisions that the hon. Member for Stone has just been talking about over the trade negotiations—a damaging and self-defeating tactic.
Many of the regulations stem from the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. New clause 3 sets out which sections of that Act are referred to in the Bill and changed by it. It asks the Government to publish the new regulations in short order and, in future, to report on their effects. Even if the Government accepted the new clause and agreed with that, however, it would still be difficult for businesses to understand it all before the new year. Is the Minister confident that HMRC has the capacity to process all the applications for authorisation that are now likely to come in from Northern Ireland-based businesses that want to comply with the new rules from 1 January?
What is attitude of the Treasury and HMRC to the enforcement of the changes in the early months of next year? For example, will businesses be penalised for not paying the relevant duties or filling out all the necessary declarations, if that happens next month while they are still trying to absorb fully the detail of the regulations? Have the Government factored in the difference between the desire to comply and the basic capacity to comply? I stress that that would not be a case of tax evasion or some clever scheme thought up by advisers to get round the rules. It would be the result of being presented with legislation just a few days before it came into force.
This not just drafting understood changes to an already understood system, as happens in Finance Bills—for example, if a Budget announces an extra penny or two on a pint of beer. These are new systems that deal with new concepts as a result of our departure from the EU and our commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol. The timescale is not the fault of businesses; the responsibility for that lies with Ministers. Amendments 1 and 2 are in the same vein as new clause 3 but focus more directly on the new system of duties and rebates set out in clauses 1 and 2, which are probably the newest measures in the Bill with which businesses will have to comply.
For the sake of completeness, I will briefly set out the Opposition’s attitude to new clause 1. The hon. Member for Stone has returned with our old friend, “notwithstanding”. Rarely can so much have been loaded on to one word. Behind it lies a concept that should give us all pause for thought. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) got to the heart of it when he asked whether it could be applied to every treaty or every international trade agreement. If it could—we are in the midst of trying to agree one by the end of the year—we have to ask what it will do in the mind of the party on the other side of the table, not only in our discussions with the EU, but presumably in discussions with other potential partners, such as India or the United States, or anyone else with whom we would seek to make a free trade agreement.
“Notwithstanding” cannot be a get-out-of-jail card for the country to escape its obligations. We would never get away with that in everyday life. Let us imagine telling a police officer, “Notwithstanding the law on theft, I thought I’d just take the goods out of the shop without paying for them.” I do not think we would get very far if we did that. We cannot set aside our obligations through a clever-sounding word. An agreement is an agreement. A deal is a deal. That is the whole point. If  the hon. Member for Stone presses his amendment, I have to tell him, in the friendliest tones, that we will certainly oppose it.

John Redwood: I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to support what may be an amendment that we are going to vote on or may be a probing amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), because I think there has been a deliberate misunderstanding by the EU and its friends over what Brexit is about and what we need to do in order to achieve a proper Brexit. A proper Brexit is taking back control; it is recreating the sovereignty of the people of the United Kingdom through their Parliament.
My hon. Friend has a distinguished career in this place trying to rebuild that sovereignty and watching, year after year, more and more of our powers taken away by successive treaties, by successive directives and regulations, many of them automatic ones over which the UK had little or no influence, and by court judgments which, again, we had precious little ability to shape. He is right that, as we come to legislate for our new arrangements as a sovereign country from 1 January next year, we need to make quite sure that we have back under the control of people and Parliament all those powers that we need to regulate, to govern and to take wise decisions on behalf of the United Kingdom.
I am very worried about some elements of the withdrawal agreement. I was told, as we were all told, that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, and that that meant the future relationship as well as the withdrawal agreement. The EU decided for its own convenience to sequence things and say, “You have to sign the withdrawal agreement first and then the future relationship agreement will follow.” A bit of flesh was put on the bones of the future relationship in the so-called political declaration, which one would have thought there was a lot of moral pressure to go along with even if it was not as strictly legally binding as they hoped the withdrawal agreement would be.
I now think there has been a lot of bad faith, because, according to both sides, the central feature of the future relationship was always going to be a free trade agreement, and where is the free trade agreement? We now discover that the EU wishes to take all sorts of other powers away from us as the price for the free trade agreement, which we have already overpaid for in the withdrawal agreement and which one would have thought, in good faith, the EU would now grant. It is very much in its interests—even more than it is in our interests—given the huge imbalance in trade, and above all in the trade that would attract tariffs if we had no free trade agreement: the trade in food.
That is really what we are talking about: are there going to be tariffs on food or not? We, the United Kingdom, run a colossal £20 billion trade deficit with the EU on food. We have to impose pretty high tariffs on food from the rest of the world—that makes absolutely no sense where we could not grow any of it ourselves; it may have some benefit for some of our farmers some of the time—but we are not allowed to put any similar tariffs on EU-sourced produce where we could produce it ourselves.
The EU system is to try to use tariffs to buttress domestic production, but it has not worked for the United Kingdom; it has worked the other way. The tariffs have been taken off in order to benefit the Dutch, Spanish, French or Irish suppliers of our market with food at zero tariffs. The EU already has rather more interest in tariff withdrawal than we do, because we could have a range of tariffs that would probably achieve the aims both of cutting food prices by having a lower average tariff and of having a bit more protection on the things that we really could make and grow for ourselves here, which we are not allowed to protect against continental products at the moment.
I therefore think that the Bill could be improved by reminding the EU that we will not be pushed around and we will not suffer too much bad faith from those original negotiations or from the withdrawal agreement itself. I think it was a very imperfect agreement. It is pretty ambiguous in places; it is imprecise in places. I have never felt that anything the Government have done, or thought of doing, was in any way illegal. Lawyers could make a perfectly good case under the withdrawal agreement treaty terms themselves, and anyway, we have the protection of my hon. Friend’s section 38, which made it very clear that this Parliament’s acceptance of the withdrawal agreement was conditional. Why else would anyone have put section 38 in the withdrawal agreement Act unless they were making a point?

Bill Cash: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it was the Prime Minister who, after an eight-hour meeting I had in No. 10 that day—17 October 2019—insisted that section 38 was necessary and appropriate?
If we go back to the previous Administration, just imagine where we would be when we consider the Chequers arrangements, and then imagine what it would have been like if we had not decided to vote against that dreadful withdrawal agreement in its original shape. There were provisions that needed to be rectified, and section 38 provides the mechanism that enables us to do that.

John Redwood: Indeed. I think my hon. Friend has confirmed that under the previous Prime Minister, when those of us who could not vote for her agreement said that we needed a sovereignty escape clause, we were told that that would not be permissible because it would not be effective implementation of the agreement; which was then reassuring to us, not liking the withdrawal agreement very much and realising that it was a provisional agreement and would be completed only were there to be a satisfactory outcome to the total range of talks. It was a totally artificial constraint that the EU invented that it had to be sequenced, when up until that point everybody had always rightly said that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.
I would like to hear from the Minister a little more explanation on the detail of the Bill. As I understand it, the Northern Ireland protocol would apply only to goods that are passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and then on to the Republic of Ireland, or the reverse—goods coming from the Republic to Northern Ireland and then passing on to Great Britain. Am I right in thinking that that is a very small proportion of the total trade? In what ways will the Government ensure that it is properly defined, so that we do not catch up most goods in those more elaborate procedures?  The bulk of the trade will be GB to Northern Ireland and back, or Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland and back, and it should not in any way be caught up in any of these proposals. I am not sure that we do have a de minimis way of dealing with the so-called things at risk.
It is not clear how the system will work for items at risk where we agree that they are at risk—and I hope it is a UK decision about what is a risk, not some other kind of decision with EU inspectors. It would be helpful to me and the wider community interested in this debate to know how a business would proceed if it had such a good at risk, to whom it would answer, and what decisions would be made about such a good in Excise, because it sounds a rather complicated and difficult arrangement, both for the business concerned and for those who are trying to enforce.
I am trying to tease out from the Minister, in pursuit of the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and myself on sovereignty, whether we are really in control if the trade has started off from GB and is going to Northern Ireland. What kind of external intervention can the EU or the Republic of Ireland engineer—how is that fair, and how will it be determined? I think that is what we are most worried about in this piece of legislation, and we would be more reassured if there were the override that my hon. Friend proposes. I should be grateful for some explanation.

Alison Thewliss: I come to this debate with many of the same concerns as I had last week. I shall not repeat them because I think everybody is quite clear on what they were. We come to this debate with the clock ticking louder and louder, and with uncertainty ahead.
I must agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) when he says that this is a complex, complicated and difficult arrangement. Yes it is, and it is absolutely baffling why we are still not certain what will happen, with such a close deadline looming. It is impossible for businesses to know what to plan for and how they will manage this, because so much is still uncertain. The Institute for Government’s Jess Sargeant went through some of the outstanding issues in the Northern Ireland protocol still to be agreed, and these are not small things but quite significant things in many cases. There is still great uncertainty about the grace period that was talked about last week, what will happen at the end of it, and what the Government are going to do between then and now, whenever this finishes. What work will they be doing in the meantime? It does feel, quite often, that this Government put things off and leave things, and then say, “Oh gosh, suddenly I have to do that at the last minute.” They do that quite regularly.
We still do not understand the real definition of “at risk” goods or indeed how they are going to be monitored. Jess Sargeant also pointed out issues around the rules on VAT and second-hand goods. That might sound like a small thing, but actually it is quite a big thing because it involves second-hand cars, many of which are exported to Northern Ireland from the UK. If people want to buy cars, they will need to know what the rules are around VAT. That is quite significant in terms of the costs that could be involved.
I understand that the arrangements for parcel movements are still not yet finalised. This is a time of year when many parcels are moving around the place. If someone were to send off a parcel just now and did not know when it was going to arrive with its recipient, either in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, they would not know what the arrangements were for any additional customs payments or anything else that might be due when it arrived. This is something that we really ought to know before any further parcels are dispatched, but that is not what will happen. People will continue to dispatch parcels, and the uncertainty about what happens at the other end is entirely on the Government.
I understand that many of the provisions will be monitored by reciprocal access databases. Does the Minister have any further detail on how that will happen? It is understood that it will be monitored by EU officials hot-desking, but where and how, and what will that access look like?
There is still uncertainty about EU product standards on industrial goods and how that applies in Northern Ireland. There are also still issues around movement of goods cargos from GB to Ireland via Northern Ireland, because not everything stops when it reaches Northern Ireland—some things are always going to be transiting through one way or the other. Last week I gave the example of cattle hides from Ireland going for processing in Scotland. We would not want those to be hanging about for any longer then they had to.
I would always question whether the Government are fully prepared for this. What gives me further cause to do so is an email I received from the Cabinet Office at nine minutes past 3 this afternoon which talks about a port infrastructure fund for which the Government have put out applications. The Government have received 53 applications, to a value of £450 million, for this port infrastructure fund. That includes rail, air and seaports right around the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The Treasury allocated £200 million to it. Why spend half of what is asked for by the ports who said what they needed for their port infrastructure, which is only happening because of Brexit? Because of what the Government have done, the money has been spread more thinly and people are getting 66% of what they asked for, while 12 ports have got absolutely nothing at all.
I do not know what these investments are, to whom they are going and by when, because that has not come before the House—it is a decision the Cabinet Office has taken. It is deeply worrying that some ports that have asked for money for their infrastructure have got nothing and some have not got all they need. The ports infrastructure is absolutely critical to this Bill in terms of the smooth operation of our ports in 16 days’ time. It is beyond belief that the Government have not made this money available more quickly and that some of it is yet to be there. I ask the Minister to check the purse strings back at the Treasury to see if perhaps more money could be found, because it is important that ports have what they need in order to make this work.
With reference to the new clauses tabled by hon. Members on the Government Benches, or rather “Opposition to the Government” Benches, I am very concerned that they are trying to bring back the new clauses that the Government have taken out. These hokey-cokey clauses have been in and out, and the  Government might as well shake it all about and put them back in again. It is damaging to our international reputation to have these clauses in the first place. They should not have been there in the first place, whether as a negotiating mechanism or anything else. They would breach international law, and the Government should have no business in breaching international law, particularly when that undermines their reputation in the negotiations.
I welcome the new clauses tabled by the Labour Front Bench in their recognition of the powers and what they are there for. Last week, I made the case that at many points in the Bill the Government are taking power for themselves and for the Treasury where they do not know what the power will be used for, and they cannot see what it will be used for, when it will be used or why it will be used. Anything that helps to hold the Government to account on the new powers that they are appropriating for themselves is welcome. I will support the new clauses if the official Opposition are minded to put them to a vote.
Through all of this, the Government have seized powers for themselves—it is not about taking back control to this place, but about taking control back from civil servants in Brussels to civil servants in Whitehall. We would all be well advised to look more carefully at the powers and how the Government intend to use them.

Andrew Jones: We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the importance of the “notwithstanding” clauses and about how unelected people should not seek to overturn democratic decisions. I agree strongly that we have seen attempts to overturn democratic decisions over the past four years, and they have been a stain on the democratic history of our country. We had a vote by the British people that had to be followed through on.
I disagree with my hon. Friend about the clauses, however. Putting them back in will not be viewed as an enormously helpful measure by those negotiating a deal, especially while our Prime Minister is out trying to get a deal that we can accept. Bringing the clauses back in will not be particularly helpful for that.
The Labour party has put forward some suggestions about providing clarity for business. That is a reasonable point because, clearly, we need to provide clarity for business. I come back from a business background, and knowing the environment that one is in helps to facilitate investment decisions. However, I have to say, the Treasury knows that. I spent some time working in the Treasury, and it gets that. It does not need to be told that. It will execute the Bill in as timely a way as it can, providing all the clarity that it can. That does not need to be legislated for.
We have had delays, because people have sought to overturn—ultimately, to negate—a democratic decision. I voted to remain in the referendum, but I immediately understood that it was a vote of the British people, and that the British people are bigger than individual politicians. Only recently have some people been able to work that one out.
The measures in the Bill are about the continuity of trade across all four parts of the UK. That is something that we should all be acutely aware of, because it is bigger than any other trade deal that could possibly be discussed anywhere.
The point in the Bill about creating a more level playing field between the online and the high street worlds of retail is, again, something that I think we should all be able to support easily. Everybody, I am sure, has had representations from retailers in their constituencies about how challenging the past few years have been. Obviously the clock cannot be turned back in any way—this is about embracing the future—but we must make sure that as retailers evolve the offer of our high streets, they are able to do so with a more level playing field. That is the objective we should be seeking in our policy.
I want to see such measures enacted as soon as possible, frankly. We are in uncertain times, and I want us to get to the position in which we can offer business as much clarity as possible, as soon as possible. I will therefore be supporting not the new clauses, but the Bill as it stands.

Wendy Chamberlain: It is a shame that the Bill has been rushed through the House so rapidly. Members have had a short amount of time in which to get to grips with a rather technical and lengthy piece of legislation. The small number of amendments tabled today speaks to the incredibly tight time limits that have been put in place. Given the impact of the legislation on businesses operating across Northern Ireland and Great Britain, that concerns me, and it should concern us all.
For me, the Bill speaks to the heart of the many contradictions of Brexit—between what was promised in 2016 and what is being delivered today. We were told that Parliament will take back control, but this Executive, peopled by the same individuals who made those promises, have arguably more contempt for the legislature than any before them. That is summed up by an incredibly depressing piece of legislation, presented a couple of weeks ago, to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which attempts to engineer the first ever return of powers from the legislature to the Executive in our history.
However, the contradictions do not end there. A case in point is clause 6 of this Bill on the uprating of fuel duty for aviation gasoline, which, for me, is a microcosm of the whole Brexit process. The whole point of Brexit was to get our sovereignty back—was it not?—so that we could finally write our own laws rather than follow bureaucratic regulations from Brussels, the sort of stiflingly dull directives with boring names such as EU energy tax directive (Council Directive 2003/96/EC). We might have thought that directive was exactly the sort of red tape we would finally cut through in Brexit Britain, and yet the Bill proves that the reality is far removed from the rhetoric, because EU energy tax directive (Council Directive 2003/96/EC), which ensures that across the EU a minimum level of tax is applied on a whole type of aircraft fuel, is in this Bill being applied across the whole of the UK.
The explanatory notes rather patriotically inform us that,
“the UK is not bound to comply with the Directive in respect of Great Britain (GB) from 1 January 2021,”
but none the less Great Britain is complying with it anyway. Does that not say a lot about Brexit and the current trade negotiations, where effectively the Government have been toying with the idea of taking maximum tariff pain now in order to allow regulatory divergence that, in all likelihood, is not going to take place?
Turning now to the amendments, I agree with amendments 1 and 2 and new clause 3, tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Economic assessments have been conspicuously lacking over the past few months, covid notwithstanding: not only a lack of assessments of the impact of any potential deal with the EU, but the refusal of the Secretary of State for International Trade to tell us whether any of the trade deals she has struck will actually leave us any better off than our current trading relationships. The other conspicuous absentee when it comes to the economic impact of all this is the Chancellor. I find it very surprising that he has said very little about the threat of no deal, during a time when the UK finds itself in the midst of its worst economic crisis.
It is entirely right that we carry out proper economic assessments of all that, not least for Northern Ireland. I remember during the election campaign last year the Prime Minister was caught on camera telling Northern Ireland businesses that,
“Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”.
In the words of the Foreign Secretary, Northern Ireland has “a cracking deal” because it has access to the EU market. Meanwhile, as we teeter on the edge of no deal, we are told by the Culture Secretary that things “will be choppy”, but that “we can survive”. I am sure those words will be a comfort to many of my constituents.
Finally, I turn to new clause 1 and new clause 2. During the debate on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill earlier, I spoke about what a disaster the notwithstanding clauses in that legislation were for the future of the UK and elsewhere. I will not repeat myself, because exactly the same applies here; all I ask is for the Minister to give a guarantee that, if there is no deal with the EU, international lawbreaking clauses will not be introduced in this or any future business. We cannot afford to let a no-deal scenario be a proxy for further actions that are hugely damaging to our international reputation. For that to be the UK’s first action once it left the EU would be a truly regrettable matter indeed.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I will speak particularly to new clause 1 and new clause 2 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, this is a matter of sovereignty. I am very keen to explore where sovereignty ends and international law starts, and that is right at the heart of those new clauses, I guess.
We have made reference several times in these debates to section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, where it says that,
“the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.”
If that is the case, and I accept that it is the case in areas of our jurisdiction, is there a need to reiterate it in every piece of legislation, or is it simply a fact that Parliament is sovereign?
My hon. Friend has rightly stated quite clearly that the UK Parliament has a general power to override treaties, but I am very keen to understand how that works in the sphere of international treaties, particularly in terms of trade agreements. As I quoted in my intervention earlier, there was a case between Mexico and the US, settled in 2009, where a US company, Cargill, took the  Mexican Government to court on the basis that they had breached the general agreement on tariffs and trade regulations of 1994. The Mexican Government had applied some punitive tariffs on soft drinks coming from the US, produced by Cargill and other companies, which effectively blocked access to the Mexican market.

Bill Cash: Let me respond briefly. This provision is really going to apply only where there is an impugnment —an infringement—of sovereignty itself. In this case, the entirety of our leaving the EU, as is well understood by the EU and provided for by article 50, and which we have done lawfully, demonstrates that when the EU and the remainers start prattling on about the idea that somehow or other we should do it on their terms, which is the basis on which the whole thing was constructed when the negotiations began, however many years ago it was—I cannot quite remember, as it seems so long ago—we see that the bottom line is that they have acted in bad faith. That is the problem. If it were not for that —we had reasonable negotiations—we probably would not be having to discuss these matters now. Most recently, we have seen that over the state aid rules, with their saying, “We’re going to punish you if you don’t do what we want.”

Kevin Hollinrake: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I have great sympathy with his points. The difficulty is that when we are in an international agreement, there is a judgment as to whether they are “acting in bad faith” or “prattling on”, and they are subjective judgments he makes. All international trade agreements need an independent body to decide who is breaching the agreement. If Parliament is simply sovereign and is able to say, “In our judgment, you are breaking the agreement”, all trade agreements would fall apart. We saw that in the case of the Mexican Government and the breaching of the terms of GATT, where that judgment was made unilaterally. The independent body, which was the arbitration council of the North American free trade agreement, settled the dispute. That is an international body; it is not subject to one national jurisdiction or the other. There has to be someone who adjudicates; we cannot simply have national sovereignty making a judgment on these points. That is why we have these investor-state dispute settlement bodies.

John Redwood: All too often in international trade agreements it does come down to power and sovereignty. President Trump has regularly used national security as a good reason to impose tariffs and override World Trade Organisation rules. The EU, for years, ignored state aid rules to promote Airbus. I can perfectly understand what it was trying to do. It took a long time to catch up with it and in practice the damage, from the WTO point of view, was done.

Kevin Hollinrake: Therein lies the difficulty, does it not? As soon as a nation, however powerful, is allowed to make a subjective judgment, it leads to international chaos. We can have international agreements that people sign and adhere to, with independent resolution. My point is that as soon as we have done that, we have handed over the settlement of the issues and disputes to another body, and we are, in effect sharing some of our sovereignty. We do not have total sovereignty at that point. We have sovereignty to sign the agreement and to  exit the agreement, but I cannot see how using sovereignty to override an agreement works. I think it would result in chaos.

Bill Cash: This is about when the issue of the override is to do with sovereignty itself—that is the point. That is why this matter is essential. That is why international law actually recognises it, in article 46. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) accepted that, as, indirectly, did Lord Judge, on this Bill. So, for practical purposes, I have quite a lot of support, even from those who originally opposed my proposals.

Kevin Hollinrake: The trouble with new clause 1 is that it says the provisions have effect
“notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law”.
Subsection 2(g) states that that means “any other legislation”. This Parliament’s decision would affect any other legislation, and so this is an overarching amendment. The key thing is that we would all agree that international agreements and free trade are important, and we need to make sure they are fair on all parties subject to those agreements. We must not forget that this is a two-way street. We want the other signatories to these trade agreements—be it Canada, Japan, the EU or whatever—to adhere to these agreements as well. It is not just about the UK heading into these agreements. We partly do that through the agreement itself, of course, but also through the soft power that the UK holds and the respect that people have for the United Kingdom.
There are some special circumstances regarding the withdrawal agreement, because there were two sides to the coin. Yes, there were the commitments that we made under the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but there was also the EU’s commitment to use its best endeavours to deliver an ambitious free trade agreement. As Members on both sides of this Chamber have said, there is no doubt that some of the things that the EU has done over the past few months have indicated that it was not using its best endeavours and that it was acting in bad faith, particularly on things such as requiring exit summary declarations for products manufactured in Northern Ireland and then shipped to the rest of the UK. That is simply unacceptable. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, what on earth would the EU do with these things if we exported them from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK? Describing all goods that went from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as “at risk” would also be simply unacceptable. I was very pleased that those key issues were resolved last week. It largely went by without notice or recognition from many Opposition Members and some parts of the media. New clauses 1 and 2 are interesting. I will not be supporting them, but I will be supporting the Bill.

Stephen Flynn: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Deputy Speaker.
When I put my name down to speak in this debate, I guess I did so more out of intrigue than expectation, given the shenanigans and the boorach of last week. We all saw what unfolded over the Ways and Means resolutions, the Bill coming 24 hours later and then off to Committee of the whole House, where nothing changed whatever.  A week later, here we are on Report, with, as far as I can see, a very clear likelihood that the Government’s Bill will move forward without a single change, despite the best valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and his desire again to get the Government to break international law.
In that regard, I must pause and reflect; I find it utterly fascinating that, despite getting what they appear to want, Members of this Parliament who have—from what I have heard—seemingly spent their entire lives working towards the political cause of leaving the European Union still seem thoroughly unhappy. I take a little bit of joy in knowing that they are so bitterly disappointed that even their friends in the Government still refuse to do just what they want. Now, I cannot be the only one who has looked at Twitter, and it appears that there may well be a breakthrough in terms of an EU trade deal. I do not know whether the Minister is sighted on the developments on this occasion, because I do not think he was last week, but I do not think that I am overreaching or overstepping in any way, shape or form to suggest that, although that may be the case, the hon. Member for Stone may still be unhappy.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Flynn: Of course I will let him intervene.

Bill Cash: I am so glad. I can only say that, actually, sovereignty is not just a theoretical concept; it is a practical necessity. It is on the basis of that that we are able to enter into arrangements internationally that are justified by our own terms of reference. The problem with the EU is that it wants to impose its terms of reference, and it never wanted us even to be able to compete with it as a third country after we had left. But it could not deny that it was lawful, so it resorted to all these other obstructions.

Stephen Flynn: I admire the hon. Gentleman’s repetition, but ultimately, when it comes to sovereignty, there is only one sovereignty that I am interested in: the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. When we look at the European Union in terms of sovereignty and the will of the people of Scotland, our views have been completely ignored. The people in my constituency voted overwhelmingly to remain. Aberdeen city as a whole is projected to be the hardest hit city in the entire UK as a result of Brexit, irrespective of whether we get a deal or not. Although I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman any further, I simply cannot understand the premise of his argument—that he is willing to break international law and is talking about sovereignty, while simultaneously rejecting the sovereign will of the people of Scotland.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman take one last intervention?

Stephen Flynn: No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to intervene and, indeed, speak today, and I think I will be doing everyone a favour if I just continue. I see that the Minister is laughing as well.
On the purpose of the Bill, I would like to reflect on the comments of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), because what he said was incredibly important. I apologise if I am misquoting him but I think he talked about the  Bill hovering as a threat. That is an important point to reflect on, particularly as we look at what was being undertaken last week and the entire process that we have gone through.
I want to conclude, because I am aware that I am close to havering, and in Scotland, when someone starts doing that, they should probably sit down. As we look forward to what the Bill will do for online sales and the level playing field that it will create on VAT sales, which is important—I see the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) nodding his head, and it is worth repeating that we agree on this point—we know that that level playing field should go further, because Northern Ireland will, in effect, have a beneficial agreement compared with anywhere else in the United Kingdom, be that Wales, England or Scotland. The level playing field that the Government are putting in place for online sales should also apply to Scotland to help our ability to access EU markets, and I would encourage the Minister to reflect on that point.

Matt Western: I rise to speak to new clause 3 and amendments 1 and 2. Three years ago, we were given the advice that this deal was going to be the “easiest in human history”. As we have just heard in the past hour or so, it is not quite as easy as some expected, and here we are with just 16 days to go. I appreciate that the Government are trying to manage expectations by talking about no deal, but in the last 30 minutes or so there has been lots of speculation online about whether a deal may have actually been struck.
Yesterday, I was listening to someone from an independent freight haulage company based in Nuneaton in north Warwickshire, and they were saying how frustrated they were by the lack of clarity coming from the Government. They were talking about the 300% to 400% increase in paperwork that they were expecting, the mixed messages from the Government, the fact that they had had to invest in new software and the fact that the lorry parks were not ready. I guess this is why the amendments and new clause 3 that my honourable colleagues have tabled, which I support, are so important. Being so close to the end of the transition period, we urgently need clarity for our businesses.
We on the Labour Benches just want to get a deal done, contrary to what is being said by some in the Chamber, because at the end of the day this is all about ensuring that our businesses have a prosperous future—have a future, indeed—and that we protect people’s jobs and livelihoods. That is why no deal would be absolutely desperate for so much of our economy, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), I really do not understand why it has taken so long for this Bill to be published. It seems that the Government were holding it back as one of their cards—maybe again threatening to break international law and damaging our reputation—but businesses cannot plan on that basis. They cannot work on a last-minute approach. That might work in negotiations in the political sphere, but it has been damaging for business. Rather than having messages such as a “check, change, go”, they have been demanding the substantive advice from the Government which, sadly, businesses across my constituency have not been receiving.
I spoke earlier to one of those businesses—a retailer and importer—and it said, “This is utter chaos. We desperately need clarity and urgency, so that we can start planning, but at the moment we cannot get hold of the goods that we’re going to be able to sell in the first quarter of next year.” I understand what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said about UK sovereignty, but the quid pro quo is about access to markets and obligations. I liken it to how businesses have to work. If they want to be in the app market and use the Apple platform, they have to pay to be part of that. If they want to be on the Sony PlayStation platform, they have to pay to access that. It is the same with the European market.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, from 1 January, the EU and the UK are both full members of the World Trade Organisation, which does not allow its members to charge to trade, controls what tariffs can be levied and says to each of its members that they have to offer most favoured nation status to any other member of the WTO? That is how we do our trade with the whole of the rest of the world, which is bigger than our trade with the EU. Why can we not do that for everything?

Matt Western: Our biggest and nearest customer is the EU. It is a critical customer and supplier to so many businesses in the UK, particularly in our manufacturing sector.
Let me briefly turn to the Northern Ireland protocol. We were told that there would be no checks, but as of last week, we have seen the need to implement new checks and controls for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and, to a lesser extent, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The Government have said rather vaguely that a significant majority of internal UK trade will be tariff-free. I would be interested to know what assessment the Government have made of the precise percentage of GB-Northern Ireland trade that will be and the volume and value that will be subject to tariffs.
That is why these amendments are important. They are aimed at injecting urgency, with just 16 days until the transition period ends. Businesses want clarity and certainty, and they need it urgently. The intention of new clause 3 and amendments 1 and 2 is simply to demand that the Government make clear when they will propose the secondary legislation flowing from the Bill, to help those businesses. The Food and Drink Federation has said that the guidance is being published too late, and 43% of its members that supply Northern Ireland have said that they will not be able to do so in the first three months of next year. Our amendments are very similar to those proposed and, sadly, voted down in Committee. They are vital to assist our businesses and are business-friendly, as the Opposition are.
I cite the disruption that we are in danger of allowing. We have seen what happened with Honda—one of the most efficient companies on the planet. That should be the canary in the mine. If Honda is not able to get parts from its supply chain here to the UK, what hope is there for small and medium-sized businesses across the UK? Whether they are a clothes retailer or a car manufacturer, they just want clarity and certainty. They want an uninterrupted supply of goods into the first quarter of next year. Given the damage already done by the pandemic,  we cannot afford further economic disruption. The Government need to move swiftly. That is why new clause 3 and amendments 1 and 2 are so important, and that is why I am supporting them.

Jesse Norman: I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate. I will address the proposed amendments and then come to the specific points that have been raised.
New clauses 1 and 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), would, if adopted, mean that the provisions in the Bill would apply notwithstanding any domestic or international law. The House will be aware that on 17 September, the Government set out that Parliament would be asked to support the use of so-called “notwithstanding” provisions in clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and any similar subsequent provisions in a Finance Bill, but only in circumstances where the fundamental purposes of the Northern Ireland protocol would be undermined. Only in those circumstances would Parliament be asked to support the use of so-called “notwithstanding” provisions, as described.

Bill Cash: We do not really know exactly how the Northern Ireland protocol is going to be interpreted, nor do we actually know its full content, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is declining to appear before my Committee to explain it.

Jesse Norman: What we do know is that the agreement was reached by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster acting for the Government on a duly legitimately and democratically elected basis in the exercise of our national sovereignty, and that should, I think, be enough for my hon. Friend.
These clauses were previously introduced as reasonable steps to create a safety net so that the Government would always be able to discharge their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in the event that a negotiated outcome could not be reached in the Joint Committee. Following intensive and constructive work over the past weeks by the UK and the EU, the Government have now reached an agreement in principle on all issues in relation to the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is an agreement that discharges the Government’s commitment to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory.
As part of the agreement, the Government committed to removing the notwithstanding provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and not to introduce them or any similar provisions in this Bill. As was noted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his statement to the House last week, in view of the agreement these provisions are no longer required. On that basis, I hope the House can agree that new clauses 1 and 2 are unnecessary.
New clause 3 and amendments 1 and 2 tabled by the Opposition would, if adopted, require the Treasury to publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to any reliefs, repayments and remissions for which the Bill allows provision to be made. The provisions contained within the Bill ensure that the Government have the  flexibility they need to establish the framework for such reliefs, repayments and remissions. Details of any policies along these lines would be announced in due course, and HMRC will publish detailed guidance providing certainty to traders and businesses, as is its normal procedure. For this reason, putting such additional provisions in the Bill is unnecessary, and therefore I urge the House to resist these amendments.
New clause 3 would, if adopted, require the publication of various reports setting out the timeframes in which the customs duty charges contained in clauses 1 and 2 would be implemented as well as the factors taken into account when using these powers. The provisions contained in clauses 1 and 2 allow the Government to establish customs charging provisions to support the practical application of article 5.1 and 5.3 of the protocol and to deal with the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. This is important legislation, which will ensure that the Government are able to implement the Northern Ireland protocol as required in UK law ahead of the end of the transition period. The regulations that set out the detail of the charging regimes will be laid after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
This Bill thus provides the framework, and the detail will be provided alongside the relevant regulations. When bringing forward regulations the Government will also provide explanatory material in the usual way.
If I may, I will now turn to some of the questions raised by Members who spoke in the debate. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) encouraged the Government to get a move on; as he will know, the Government have been proceeding extremely rapidly and energetically in this area ever since the issues first arose. He also asked about guidance, and of course he is right that in the normal course of these things guidance will follow the publication of the Bill, but he also ought to be aware that the guidance that will be published follows the Northern Ireland protocol and the Command Paper and that in relation to other matters, which is what I was referring to, the House has seen customs guidance on 7 August, the trader support service launched on 20 September, guidance on VAT and excise on 26 October, and a whole host of other information designed to support traders and others involved in these changes.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what new systems are being put in place, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), so let me respond on that. My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in terms of the agreement for at-risk and not-at-risk goods, there is a requirement for there to be genuine and substantial use for the goods to be classified as at-risk. HMRC expects there to be up to 11 million declarations in relation to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Customs Declaration Service, which has been put in place, has a minimum viable product up and running as we speak.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) referred to hokey-cokey clauses, but of course the clauses have never been included. They were themselves a response to a perfectly plain concern, which every Member of the House should feel, that, as matters stood, even a bag of salad would be considered an at-risk good, a consequence of the previous understanding that was patently absurd and which has been removed by this change.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about a last-minute approach, but I would remind him that when this point, or this attempted point, was made by the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), I asked her if she could recall a single occasion when the EU had ever failed to negotiate except at the very last minute of a negotiation, and she was unable to point to such a case. That is, I think, the principal reason why we are in the position that we are in.
With those remarks, I would urge the House to resist these amendments.

Bill Cash: We have had an interesting debate and, as far as I am concerned, the Government had originally proposed putting these clauses in the Bill itself. I personally think that they will find, in due course, a necessity to have something that is on exactly the same lines, and the same applies to the UKIM Bill. However, in the circumstances, because I want this Bill to go through, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my new clause. I just simply say: sovereignty is indivisible.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 - Treasury use of powers

“(1) The Treasury must, within four working days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report setting out the timeframe within which it will use the powers to make regulations conferred by—
(a) section 40A(2) of TCTA 2018;
(b) section 40B(1) and (2) of TCTA 2018;
(c) section 30A(4) of TCTA 2018;
(d) section 30B(1) and (3) of TCTA 2018;
(e) section 30C(5) of TCTA 2018; and
(f) section 5(2) of this Act.
(2) The Treasury must publish an annual report setting out how it has made use of the powers referred to in subsection (1).
(3) Each report under subsection (2) must include an assessment of—
(a) what considerations the Treasury made when deciding to use its powers, and
(b) the impact of the regulations on individuals and businesses throughout the UK, and specifically in Northern Ireland.”—(Mr McFadden.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 364.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Third reading.

Jesse Norman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had some good debates in the course of the Bill. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, but there are two in particular whom I would like to thank. First, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has truly been the workhorse of the shadow Front Bench throughout the Bill. For a shadow Economic Secretary, as he is supposedly designated—he should of course be much higher—he has done a wonderful job, and I salute him for it. Secondly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is sadly no longer in his place. I think he should be referred to as the ancient mariner of Brexit. As you may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, Coleridge says:
“It is an ancient Mariner,
And he stoppeth one of three.
‘By thy long grey beard and glittering eye,
Now wherefore stopp’st thou me?”
Although my hon. Friend does not, tragically, present us with a long grey beard, he has something of a glittering eye where matters of Brexit are concerned. We can only salute the energy and indefatigability with which he has attacked the topic over many years, while perhaps devoutly hoping that this may be the moment at which, at the end of this year, a hiatus or pause may be reached.
In just over two weeks’ time, the transition period will end. The UK and its tax system must be ready to support the smooth continuation of business across this country. In that regard, the Bill is a cornerstone of those preparations. In addition, it will play an important part in helping to implement the Northern Ireland protocol and to safeguard the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It introduces a framework for charges on goods arriving in Northern Ireland and enables the Government to put in place decisions made by the Joint Committee for goods deemed to be at risk of moving into the EU. It also includes mechanisms to ensure that, in so far as is possible, VAT will be accounted for in the same way as it is today in Northern Ireland.
Let me once again assure the House that HMRC will remain the tax authority for the whole of the UK, andlet me remind hon. and right hon. Members that businesses will continue to submit only one UK VAT return to account for VAT on all supplies of goods and services. The Bill also amends current legislation for excise duty to be charged when excise goods are removed to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, as required by the protocol. However, that does not mean additional costs for Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, because the Government will be introducing a mechanism to offset any excise duty already paid on those goods in Great Britain.
The Bill introduces a small increase in the rate of duty on aviation gasoline, which will apply across the UK to ensure consistency between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Finally, the Bill includes a small number of other taxation measures, including measures to ensure the Government retain their ability to prevent insurance premium tax evasion.

John Redwood: I think the Minister needs to be a little more forthcoming. What is the EU’s enforcement mechanism if it thinks UK authorities have not fulfilled the remit? What percentage of trade are we expecting to be caught up in this double jurisdiction?

Jesse Norman: As I have already said to my right hon. Friend, without venturing a percentage, the test for at-risk goods is those where there is a “genuine and substantial risk”, and therefore those are expected to be a smaller proportion of goods, but trade of course is a flexible and ever-changing thing, so whatever numbers there are may change over time.
My right hon. Friend also asked a question about the EU. I am not going to speculate on what the EU does, but I can assure him that there will be no EU customs, embassy or the like and no joint control over customs in Northern Ireland. HMRC will remain the tax authority for Northern Ireland, as it is for the whole of the UK.
The Bill also includes new powers that will enable HMRC to raise tax charges under the controlled foreign companies legislation for the period 2013 to 2018. Lastly, to help level the playing field for UK businesses, the Bill also moves VAT collection on certain imported goods away from the border and removes VAT relief on low-value consignments to clamp down on VAT abuse and to protect our high streets.
The Bill gives businesses throughout the UK certainty about the arrangements that will apply from 1 January of next year. Above all, it helps the Government to safeguard what we all prize and desire, or should all prize and desire: the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom. I commend the Bill to the House.

Pat McFadden: I do not propose to detain the House for very long. I thank the Minister for the typically courteous way in which he has led these short debates on the Bill. He has outlined the changes that the Bill makes through its various clauses on customs, VAT, insurance liability and so on, and I do not propose to repeat all that.
From our point of view, and as I have made clear all along, we do not oppose the passage of this Bill, because we understand that these changes have to be put in place. The Government reached agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol. We want them to stick to and abide by their agreements as we want the EU to stick to and abide by its agreements, too. Many of the changes in the Bill stem from those agreements. I also reiterate my party’s strong support for the Good Friday agreement and for policies and practices that uphold the spirit and letter of the agreement into the future.
We have set out our views on the timing of the Bill and the difficulties that the changes it outlines pose for businesses trying to comply with them. The Minister has said it is always last minute with the EU and that it was always going to be like this. I am not sure I fully agree with that. We are asking a lot of businesses with just a couple of weeks of the year left, in the midst of the pandemic and as we are about to enter the Christmas holiday period. I hope that the Minister and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), who joined him last week, are correct when they say that everything will be in place by 1 January, but I cannot help but reflect at this time of year that perhaps in the minds of many it did not always need to be like this. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s Christmas wish—all he wanted for—was that the German car manufacturers would come riding over the hill and influence the negotiations. I hope that Santa visits all good boys and girls over the Christmas period, but I do not think that that particular Christmas wish of the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues is going to come true. This week, just as last week, one gets the impression that the action is elsewhere. I do not know whether an agreement will be reached in the next couple of days. There has been some rumour and social media chatter that we are heading in that direction over the past hour or so. Time will tell and wisdom would counsel us to wait to see what happens before making any predictions.
These measures in the Bill are largely a result of the commitments that the Government have made. I hope they are not too burdensome on businesses because at the end of all this—both the Brexit process and the covid period, which we hope to see come to an end through the use of the vaccine—we will have to gather around a process of business getting back to what it does: trading, serving its customers, providing goods and services and helping economic growth to come back to the country. There may be competing visions as to how best that should happen in the future, and what a blessed debate that would be in our politics, rather than some of the issues that have coloured it over recent years. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the Members who have contributed to debates on this Bill.

Alison Thewliss: I also wish to thank the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), for the way in which this debate has been conducted, as well as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for his contributions, which were typically detailed. There is one point of detail that I was quite surprised that he missed. I have been saving this up the end, just in the hope that he might have picked up on it. He has waxed lyrical about sovereignty, as he does in every  single debate I think he has ever spoken in, but I am quite surprised that he allowed to fly the EU setting the level of taxation on aviation gasoline. The reason that I am quite surprised about that, in the most ludicrous of ludicrous Brexit-based patriotic ironies, is that avgas is the fuel used not just in private and leisure aircraft, as the Minister set out, but in Spitfires, Hurricanes and other similar planes. There is some mad irony in the UK Government handing over to the EU the power to set the taxation on those vintage planes that bear so much patriotism among so many people.
I suppose that it is typical of the Government’s approach to all of this that there is so much detail in the Bill that we cannot possibly see—

Jesse Norman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison Thewliss: Of course.

Jesse Norman: Will the hon. Lady tell us how much extra cost filling a Spitfire with fuel will incur according to this extra avgas taxation?

Alison Thewliss: I think the Minister knows well that it is the principle of the EU continuing to set the fuel duty rate, rather than the cost of it. Conservative Members know well about all these principles—they are principles of patriotism that they hold dear. The Minister has allowed this to slide in and he has done very well not to alert their suspicions on it.

Jesse Norman: I think we can all have a patriotism that is rich and bold enough to incur an extra £10 on a 450-litre tank of avgas.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the Minister for that detail. If he can tell me the further details on the questions that I have not yet had answered from the previous day’s debate, that would be welcome. I can go through the things that he has not yet answered and have him answer all those, if he has that particular detail to hand. I thank him for that and look forward to letters appearing in my letterbox with the detail at some stage.
Other letters that have not yet appeared are those from Baroness Davidson and the former Secretary of State for Scotland, who both threatened to resign if Northern Ireland got any special treatment in these negotiations, yet that is exactly what we have as a result of this legislation. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, it gets the “best of both worlds” in this deal—it gets to be in the EU and part of this Union—and yet Scotland is not getting any of that. Scotland is getting thoroughly ripped off as a result of the deal.
The Minister talked about strengthening the Union, but the Union is slipping away from the Government’s grasp. By every action that they take in this legislation, Scotland sees further and further how we are being undermined and left behind by this Government. They do not give much of a toss about Scotland—they are pushing their own Brexit agenda, and the rest of us can put up with it.
The Minister mentioned the additional paperwork that is coming. Northern Ireland in particular is being wound up in a giant Christmas ball of red tape as a result of the legislation. He talked about 11 million extra declarations and paperwork. That is more than 265 additional bits of form-filling that will happen after Brexit. The Government used to talk about getting rid  of all the red tape, but in fact they are increasing it. They used to talk about taking powers back from the bureaucrats in Brussels, whereas in fact they are giving them back to bureaucrats in Whitehall, out of sight of this House.
We still do not know whether the transition period is ending, and with 16 days to go we still do not know what we are going to transition to. This Government have made an absolute mess of the four and a half years that they have had. We have absolutely no confidence in the direction that they are going and, with 16 polls in Scotland now showing support for independence consistently over the past months, we can see exactly where Scotland is going. It should be going there as soon as possible.

John Redwood: I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Bill is a great missed opportunity. It should have been the Bill in which we started to cut and reorganise the taxes, celebrating our new freedoms as we leave the European Union. There is so much good we could do by remodelling and reducing the incidence of VAT, for example, or by having excise duties and tariffs that make sense for British business and for British importers, because we need to balance the two. Instead, it is a rather technical Bill.
I think it is a pity that this House has not been given a detailed account of what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has agreed so far, and a detailed account of what still remains to be agreed, because I believe that there were outstanding issues. On behalf of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, we need to know the extent of this possible dual jurisdiction and how it actually works.
The Minister has kindly assured me on more than one occasion that the VAT regime in Northern Ireland will be the UK VAT regime and will be enforced by normal UK enforcement. That is very good, but cannot be the whole story, because we know that there is this overlapping jurisdiction for certain types of goods. We are still not privy to how big an issue that is. I presume it is a small proportion of trade, but we have not been given any indication of that, and we have not been told—perhaps the Joint Committee has not yet agreed it, or does not want to share it with us yet—exactly how that might work. It is a pity that we do not have more of that detail.
I am also concerned that we should not get drawn into the state aid issue, which is clearly part of the wider discussion between our Ministers and negotiators, and those in the European Union. We know that the European Union takes a very wide definition of state aids. State aids definitely include all taxation, which is the subject of this piece of legislation, and grants, subsidies, the competition framework and general industrial policy. It is very wide ranging, and there is no way we can say we have Brexit if the EU will have powers over our state aid policies, because that would be tentacles stretching into this Bill and the powers of the Treasury, Customs and Excise, and the Business Department and its competition and industrial policies, as well as into energy and practically every other major area one can imagine. I therefore hope my right hon. Friends and the UK negotiators are firm on that in their discussions.
We must have control of taxation and state aids as a fundamental part of our Brexit departure. We would have taken more confidence from the Government if they had used this Bill to show just how much better a UK-based taxation policy could be. We need a taxation policy that promotes more fishing and farming at home, promotes more industry and manufacturing at home, and promotes that green revolution they want by stripping the VAT off the green products that the EU has imposed on them—a policy that allows small businesses to flourish and does not overburden them with compliance and red tape. That is what we wanted from Brexit, and the sooner Ministers bring it forward, the better.

Wendy Chamberlain: I echo the thanks of the Minister and the Labour and SNP Front-Bench spokespeople, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), as well the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who covered the earlier stages of the Bill on behalf of my party.
I became an MP a year ago and Whip for my party in September. Despite the covid challenges, the Leader of the House was giving Members two weeks’ notice of business up until two weeks ago. This Bill was tabled less than two weeks ago. Now, we find ourselves in a situation where the business for tomorrow was announced today, and where Bills are being given very little time for legislative scrutiny before they are considered by the House. This does not feel like a sovereign Parliament to me.
Despite covid, the Government have had a lot of time to bring forward the necessary legislation ahead of the transition period, whether there is a deal or not. If they felt that the challenge of covid this year was too great, they could have averted the current covid-Brexit collision by extending the transition period. I would ask when the Government realised that the measures in this Bill and, indeed, this week’s Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill were needed. I worry what potential measures the Government may have failed to legislate for, and the extent to which we are prepared for the end of the transition period, deal or no deal.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Arms and Ammunition

That the draft Antique Firearms Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 25 November, be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Insolvency

That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1349), dated 24 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 November, be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,
That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—(Maggie Throup.)

Nigel Evans: As the House has just agreed to the motion, amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may now be tabled. Hon. Members should table through the Public Bill Office inbox: PBOHoC@parliament.uk. They should not attempt to hand in amendments, new clauses or new schedules at the Table in the Chamber.

Petition - Inquiry into Government Covid-19 Contracts

Patrick Grady: It was one of my honourable colleagues who coined the term “cronyvirus” to describe this Government’s approach to the awarding of contracts in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Many of my constituents, like constituents all around the country, are completely outraged by the way the Government have doled out public funds to their friends and cronies.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow North,
Declares that contracts awarded by the UK Government during the COVID-19 pandemic have avoided proper scrutiny which has resulted in billions of pounds of taxpayer money being handed to companies without due process or competition; further that many contracts have been awarded to companies with no direct experience in providing the contracted services, such as the manufacturing of Personal Protective Equipment; further that this has given rise to concerns around potential conflicts of interest as contracts worth £1.5 billion have been awarded to individuals and companies with links to the Conservative Party; and notes that an investigation by the National Audit Office into UK Government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic has found a lack of transparency and inadequate documentation on why suppliers were chosen and how the UK Government identified and managed potential conflicts of interest.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to commit to an immediate public inquiry into all Government contracts awarded under emergency COVID-19 powers since March.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002640]

National Trust: 125th Anniversary

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Maggie Throup.)

Derek Thomas: I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me to bring forward this debate on the National Trust in the year of its 125th anniversary, which is obviously coming to an end.
The National Trust is a fantastic British institution and an important part of our offer to international tourists. In many ways, the National Trust sets the benchmark for the high standard of our heritage and natural environment. Personally, I have a positive history with the National Trust, having served much of my apprenticeship as a Cornish mason on National Trust sites. It is that relationship, and the fact that I care about the National Trust, that brings me to the House this evening, along with the concern of many of my constituents.
I stand here to celebrate 125 years of the National Trust and to petition the Government and the National Trust to act to ensure that the National Trust does not lose sight of its core principles and charitable aims. It was this House that gave the National Trust its purpose:
“The National Trust shall be established for the purpose of promoting the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and tenements (including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as regards lands for the preservation (so far as is practicable) of their natural aspect, features and animal and plant life.”
I recognise that responsibility for the National Trust, in all its functions and as it discharges its duties, will span several Government Departments, but I am glad to see a Minister from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport present to respond to this debate.
It is time for the Government and/or the Charity Commission to review whether the National Trust is behaving in a way that is consistent with its purpose. I say that because I see increasing evidence of the National Trust appearing to reach far beyond what people believe to be its purpose and function, acting at times as a completely unaccountable body that can make impositions on lives and livelihoods without any right to reply or recourse, having no concern for how long it takes to engage, even when individuals and businesses seek proactively to engage and appease National Trust staff.
It is right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I inform you at this stage that I have written to the Charity Commission to set out my concerns and those of many of my constituents. There is reason to be concerned and I hope to set out this evening a few examples of why concerns exist.
Constituents in west Cornwall raise examples such as the trust proposing that landowners carry out activity, including the erection of buildings, on land that neither it nor the owner actually owns; house sales either falling through or prices being dramatically reduced because of obstructive interventions and/or delays by the National Trust; constituents waiting two and a half years for the National Trust to finalise a covenant; businesses being charged levies in return for National Trust consent to developments on privately owned land; the trust appearing to favour the promotion of holiday accommodation over the maintenance of small but important farms along the Cornish coast; blocking efforts to install  renewable energy solar panels on privately owned agriculture buildings; having a disregard for local sensitivities, listed building regulations and basic planning processes; embellishing covenants, leaving owners stating to me that their grandparents, who agreed to covenants in good faith, would turn in their grave; and refusing to take responsibility for assets that are unsafe for the general public.
Only this weekend, I was asked:
“Please could you ask the National Trust if it is still their policy to support small family farms? Or given their current financial crisis will they opt for the short term financial gain of holiday accommodation over the long term benefit of local employment and better husbandry of the land?
This is particularly important for your constituency where several National Trust tenant farmers have recently given notice to quit, leaving an opportunity for new, younger entrants into farming—an opportunity that the NT appears not to be taking.”
Should that be the case, it is completely contrary to the good work that the Government are doing through the Agriculture Act 2020 to support the introduction of fresh blood into farming and support the transition to younger generations.

Wera Hobhouse: Is it not time, however, on the 125th anniversary, to congratulate the National Trust on all the wonderful work that it has done—branching out to protect land and our natural environment as well—and understand that the National Trust, along with Government and all of us, are facing very difficult choices and challenges?

Derek Thomas: I welcome that intervention, and that is exactly my point—the National Trust is such an important institution, is so celebrated and important to the British way of life, our care and protection of the natural environment, that if we allow some of these things to continue, that good work could be lost—lost in translation, if not lost to the awareness of the public. Yes, this is a difficult time, but I have been an MP for just over five years and many of these issues were there long before I became an MP. I have worked hard, but have failed to address some of those very difficult issues with the National Trust. This is not—I am really clear with the National Trust when they give me a similar response—about the additional pressures that covid has inflicted on the National Trust.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I should declare that I am a member of the National Trust and have been for many years, but I have a very robust relationship with it in my constituency, because I think it is very important that some of the issues that the hon. Member is bringing into the Chamber tonight are debated transparently and openly. Nevertheless, I hope that we can get back to a time when my constituency had a million visitors a year coming to the world heritage site that the National Trust manages. We have seen the benefit of that tourism to my constituency, and to the local farmers and local businesses in the village of Bushmills.

Derek Thomas: I want to make it clear that the work that the National Trust has done around west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—Cornwall in particular—is hugely important and valued.
In April 2020 I set up, with a councillor from Cornwall Council, a tourism recovery group, and the National Trust took part as a representative of many different organisations, all charged with trying to find a safe way  to open up tourist attractions for people to return, as they did on 4 July. This is about identifying some of the concerns that constituents have, in order to address them, so that we can return to the core values and be reminded of the fantastic work that the National Trust can deliver through a huge army of fantastic volunteers across the United Kingdom. However, it is of great concern if the National Trust’s approach to increasing yield is to make as much money as it can, rather than protect and enhance small farms and support the fresh blood introduced into the sector.
A constituent that I have been in correspondence with for some time writes:
“We wanted to put solar panels on an agricultural shed on the farm as a way of reducing costs and our carbon footprint. The National Trust objected and prevented us from doing this.
The National Trust threatened me with legal action after we placed a temporary or moveable hut in a field for the summer months to sell ice cream from our own dairy cows, which we make on the farm. It is normal farming practice for a farmer to sell his produce in whichever way he deems the most profitable. To contradict themselves, the National Trust have ice cream vendors selling ice cream at multiple…sites all around the country, many of them rural beauty spots.
The National Trust reinvent the interpretation of the covenant as it suits them, as our family have found out on many occasions. In short, if it was okay to remove a rock or plough a field when the covenant was granted then it still is now, as the covenant’s wording has not changed, nor will it.”
She continues:
“This giant and powerful organisation is making uninformed, inaccurate and hugely detrimental decisions that are inconsistent.
Their interpretation is preventing small family farms from farming and could cause many of us to go out of business, as many farmers do not have the spare capital to litigate against such a huge organisation.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you wish to alter or extend your property, the local planning authority operates under strict rules and guidelines, the process is time-limited and the applicant has the opportunity to challenge the decision. If you happen to have a National Trust covenant on your property, sadly, the same transparency and accountability does not apply. The National Trust can determine whether the same improvements take place, with no clearly published process or procedure. There is no requirement for the National Trust to give reasons for its decision; it can take as long as it wants and there is no appeals process. For example, Cape Cornwall Club, a privately owned hospitality business that leases its 70-acre golf course from the National Trust, has taken 18 months to gain consent to pre-planning proposals to carry out much-needed improvements to the hospitality business—months and months waiting for responses to emails from architects, some of which were only obtained because my office intervened.
Now the club has got past that hurdle, the National Trust demands a new levy based on the improved value of the asset. No previous levy ever existed and no details can be found in the covenant. The owner wrote to me saying:
“The National Trust are trying to impose an undisclosed levy on any increase in the value of our freehold value once we have formal permission to complete the work and they also want us to pay for the surveyors’ valuation.”
In return, the National Trust said that
“as a condition of giving our consent, we require a monetary payment where our consent, substantially increases the open market value of the covenanted land. This increase is called ‘uplift’.”
The trust stated that its consent
“would add value to the property which you will benefit from when it is sold, in these circumstances it is only equitable that the Trust also benefits from this uplift having given permission for them”.
I really am not sure that that is appropriate or just, and I hope the Minister can look at that issue in particular. I would assume that it is for Government to apply taxes, not the National Trust.
Furthermore, other businesses have found the trust to be similarly unhelpful, despite the significant challenges, to which we have just referred, that businesses have faced this year. For example, the National Trust insisted on charging full rent on a hospitality business during lockdown and refused to negotiate any reduction whatsoever or even to negotiate a payment plan. The business was closed and had to return fees and charges that it had collected. The National Trust’s cold response in October this year was:
“As the restrictions were imposed by the Government, it is not for the National Trust as a landlord to be expected to credit valid rent/lease charges.”
The National Trust is not even prepared to discuss payment plan proposals. Instead, it has issued a final demand and intends to take legal action.
One of the earliest and most troubling examples of the National Trust’s approach to discharging its duties, which takes me right back to soon after I first became an MP, was the case of Levant mine. If anyone has the opportunity to go and see it, it is an amazing, historical, vitally important former tin mine, right at the far western end of my constituency. The National Trust’s approach in the case of Levant mine was to run roughshod over planning laws, local concerns and sensitivities in order to maximise income for the trust and in the name of health and safety.
The difficulty was that, as someone who learned some important skills about preservation and heritage while working on National Trust sites as an apprentice, I could see on visiting the site that the work carried out at Levant fell well short of anything that would previously have been accepted. The sad twist of this particular episode is that Levant mine saw the loss of 31 miners last century and many people, including descendants of those lost, hold a special place for Levant mine in their hearts. The National Trust’s approach to Levant mine resulted in many excellent, experienced local volunteers packing it in. Thankfully, much of the work has been rectified, but only after significant local objection, local expertise, which I was very grateful for, enforcement by Cornwall Council and intervention, including by my office.
The trust’s completely avoidable misdemeanours included installing unsightly signage and infrastructure on land that forms part of one of our most important areas of outstanding natural beauty. It sought to impose parking charges on land that does not belong to the trust. It intended to increase the car park in a way that was completely inappropriate, given its location in an AONB. It failed to secure building consent. It parked a coffee van adjacent to the place where the families go to remember  the miners who died, and it erected poorly designed safety grilles and barriers of dubious build quality. Even today, I hear concerns about the lack of basic maintenance on this hugely important site.
During my brief time as a MP, I have found that the case load of National Trust-related issues is disproportionate to the many other issues that an MP’s office encounters. I accept that the National Trust has important responsibilities for huge parts of the Cornwall, and it does an important job for us. I have many more examples that I could give, but I will just mention one: Porthleven slipway. The beach is another beautiful place to visit if you are in the area, and it is owned by the National Trust. The only access to the beach is via a slipway that Land Registry records show the National Trust is responsible for. The National Trust does not accept that, and despite advice to rectify Land Registry records, it has decided not to. The slipway is dangerous and unmaintained. To me and many others, this is an abdication of duty by the trust.
As I say, there are plenty of examples, but instead I will turn to the Minister with four clear asks. Important comments have been made in the debate about the value of the National Trust, its service to our beautiful country and the opportunity it provides to attract visitors from overseas and to protect our beautiful natural environment. Given that, will the Minister look at the need to review whether the National Trust is acting in keeping and truly in line with its core principles and charitable aims? Will he consider the need for an ombudsman or similar pathway for people who believe that they have been treated wrongly or poorly by the National Trust to be heard and for the National Trust to be held to account? Will he investigate the practice of the National Trust in imposing charges and levies on landowners and businesses? Will he look at the need for an independent body or mediator to approve any proposed changes to existing covenants by the National Trust? Currently, landowners have no course of action other than to go through a legal route, and the cost of litigation is far too high, so they buckle under the pressure.
I am a fan of the National Trust. I learned important skills—ones that I may well need to fall back on at some stage in my life—by working on National Trust sites. I have huge admiration for the army of National Trust volunteers, who do incredible work across west Cornwall and around the country. I have enjoyed a good relationship with most of the National Trust—possibly not after this evening. I do not believe that the trust is rotten to the core, but there is certainly rot within the organisation. There is a need to review how it operates, to ensure that it can deliver on its primary purpose and charitable aims and continue to provide all the value added that it does to our country.

Nigel Huddleston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this Adjournment debate and on highlighting issues that touch on his constituency and the wider powers of the National Trust. The trust is celebrating its 125th anniversary, and he is right to note its achievements, as have others, including the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency earlier in the year, I know that his part of  the world is, indeed, blessed with beautiful landscapes, fantastic scenery and an amazing coastline. It has more than its fair share of heritage sites, including a world heritage site, so I recognise his interest in the overall heritage agenda and the National Trust in particular.
Before turning to the specific matters raised by my hon. Friend, I would like to join him in acknowledging the tremendous work that the National Trust has done over the last 125 years. When it focuses on its core function, which is managing the collection of historic houses, gardens and landscapes for the pleasure and benefit of the public, the work of the National Trust is often unsurpassed and brings enjoyment to millions of visitors and members. I include myself in that number, as I am a proud National Trust member, and I have spent many weekends visiting attractions in and around my constituency and the country in my capacity as heritage Minister.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the Minister include in his praise the fact that the National Trust is setting itself a progressive agenda, telling a history that might not always be as traditional as some traditionalists would like and a story that is more inclusive and includes Black Lives Matter, as is the case in the excellent exhibition in Dyrham Park?

Nigel Huddleston: Indeed; the National Trust, like many heritage institutions, has a responsibility to explain, but also to not lecture. That is a difficult balance that some organisations are facing at this moment in time.

John Hayes: On that point, has not the National Trust become preoccupied by the political polemic and flirted with a number of ideological causes that are far from its core mission of preserving and promoting Britain’s heritage through the houses and land of which it is the custodian?

Peter Bottomley: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here longer than anybody else. He knows that the Minister has to finish responding to the first intervention before he can take a second.

Nigel Huddleston: It is nice to see even the Father of the House making procedural errors; it gives us all a bit of confidence.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) knows, we had a debate about this issue in Westminster Hall not so long ago. I think it would be unfair to characterise the National Trust as being preoccupied by some of the matters that he mentioned. The trust knows that some of the issues that it has talked about are a matter of public debate, and it is very important that it listens to its members, to Members of Parliament and to our constituents’ concerns. When the National Trust focuses on its core role, it does an excellent job, but it is sensitive and aware that it has —unintentionally, perhaps—caused offence to Members of this House and our constituents with some of the comments that it has made recently.

Peter Bottomley: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful; I was only trying to help the Minister as he replied to our right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). May I put  on record that I completely disagree with our right hon. Friend over what the National Trust has done with regard to Black Lives Matter issues and slavery? I congratulate the National Trust on having an interactive exhibition some years ago showing what it was doing, long before it became fashionable to look to see what the past included. It would be kind to the National Trust for us to recognise that there is a variety of views on the Conservative Benches, and I will speak up for that. I also suggest that the National Trust writes openly to those who have contributed to this debate with its answers to each of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), because I am sure that it can deal with them in a way which will make everyone happier.

Nigel Huddleston: The Father of the House is right that there is a diversity of opinions on this issue and others. As I said, I have had many conversations with the National Trust. Where it has caused offence—and it recognises that it has caused offence and upset—I genuinely believe that that has been unintentional. It focuses very much on its core role. On my hon. Friend’s other comments about responding to our hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, that will indeed be one of the requests later in my speech.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I hope that the Minister will recognise that the National Trust has actually appointed someone to address the issue of “woke” within the organisation, and that is clearly a recognition within the trust that it has not got the balance right. As has been inferred by the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), a lot of work needs to be done, but we congratulate it on the steps that it is taking and look forward to working with it, hand in hand. I am looking forward to seeing how the Minister responds to the calls tonight for an ombudsman-type service into some of these issues, so that we can really ensure that the National Trust is the nation’s trust.

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the National Trust endeavours to work with all stakeholders, who hold a variety of opinions, as we do in balancing the opinions of our constituents. I appreciate the comments that he made earlier praising the National Trust, as well as, quite fairly and reasonably, expressing concerns about its practices.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I have allowed a lot of interventions. The Father of the House arrived one minute late for the debate, so I have given him the benefit of the doubt. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was here at the beginning of the debate. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) arrived a minute and a half late. The hon. Gentleman came in 10 minutes after the beginning of the debate, so I do not really think he should be intervening, unless it is really serious for his constituency. I think he should do the decent thing and not intervene, when he came in 10 minutes after the beginning.

Nigel Huddleston: I would be happy to engage with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) after this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives set out his concerns about how the National Trust is run, so it might be helpful if I speak to its governance arrangements before coming on to some of the specific concerns he raised. The National Trust’s vision is to protect and care for places so that people and nature can thrive. To deliver this ambition, it is governed by a board of independent trustees chaired since 2014 by Tim Parker. The chair is supported by a team of trustees who bring expertise to the running of the trust and who are collectively responsible for everything that happens and for ensuring that the trust meets its statutory purpose. The trust is also a registered charity, regulated therefore by the Charity Commission, so the board has to ensure that its activities do not contravene its charitable purpose. The role of the Charity Commission is to ensure that charities further their charitable purposes for the public benefit, comply with their legal responsibilities and duties, and ensure that there is no misconduct or mismanagement.
Charities are independent entities, and provided that they act within the law and the terms of their governing documents, charity trustees have broad discretion to further the charity’s purpose in a way that they consider most appropriate. If they do so, the Charity Commission has no reason to intervene. Where charities are making decisions that impact on local communities, they must, as a matter of good practice, engage with those communities and listen to their concerns and the strength of local feeling to ensure that they are properly informed before making their decision. That area is, as we have heard, potentially an area of weakness for the trust, and it must consider the comments made today.
I set out these governance arrangements to emphasise the point that the National Trust is an independent body. It is independent of the Government. It does not receive any ongoing public funding for its work, and its activities are overseen by the board and the Charity Commission as regulator. This means that while I can debate with my hon. Friend where the trust can do better, I cannot direct or order such change. He suggests that an ombudsman might be better placed to oversee the trust. Ultimately, that is not for me to decide, but I can say that the issues he raises have been brought to the attention of the Charity Commission, which is considering them carefully. It will need to determine whether the trustees have acted in line with their legal duties and responsibilities. He will know that the Charity Commission itself is answerable to Parliament and can be called on to give evidence on its work before, for example, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
With regard to some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, he expressed concerns about mismanagement, poor decision making and a lack of responsiveness by the National Trust in Cornwall, including its oversight of the world heritage site known as the Tin Coast, which includes the historic Levant mine. He says that some of his constituents have waited for as long as two and a half years for a decision on an issue. This is very troubling given the custodian role of the National Trust—the role it plays in many of our communities up and down the country. The National Trust owns significant amounts of land and properties in and around his constituency, and trying to find an appropriate balance of the needs of local residents, businesses, the economy and the maintenance of the historic environment can be  fraught with difficulty. However, I agree that a good balance must be struck between those competing pressures, and that this balance must be established in conjunction with the local community.
My hon. Friend spoke about covenants, or conservation covenants as they are often known, and asked whether there could be an independent regulator to mediate disputes over these. Covenants have a long-standing history over hundreds of years of English common law, and it will be no surprise to him if I suggest that wholesale reform, if it is indeed needed, is perhaps a debate for another day. But in general terms, when a landowner wants to make changes on their land—for example, to construct a new building or to change the purpose of their land—they may need to ask for consent from the covenant holder. Obtaining this consent is separate from any planning, listed building or scheduled ancient monument consent that may also be required. The National Trust holds an astounding 1,760 covenants across 36,000 hectares of land, and many of these arose as a result of approaches by landowners offering covenants so that should their family dispose of the property at any time in the future, they would have the comfort of knowing that the trust would be able to protect certain aspects that they held dear about the land or property in question. They therefore play an important role in aiding the trust in its duties to conserve.
However, as my hon. Friend set out, covenants also give the trust a high degree of control over changes on covenanted land, and it is sometimes the case that the wishes of the occupants conflict with how the trust views its responsibility of conservation, as covenant holder. With this control and authority over land come different responsibilities, additional to conservation, such as listening to different views, understanding local concerns and explaining the decisions the trust makes, especially when these are complex and difficult.
It would not be appropriate for me to adjudicate or judge the merits of the case that my hon. Friend has described. The Charity Commission is the most appropriate and expert body in this regard and I do not want to  pre-empt any decision it has yet to arrive at. However, allegations that the National Trust is not explaining its decisions or taking into account a wide spread of views are, unfortunately, familiar things that will resonate with many Members of this House—we have heard that this evening—as will the concern that correspondence is sent but replies are not always forthcoming, or, at least, not in a timely manner.
This way of working does not build the confidence of Members, who are rightly trying to represent their constituents, as is my hon. Friend. The trust must understand that, given the power it holds, it has a significant responsibility to work with local communities while conserving the land it is entrusted with. I assure him that I will raise that responsibility directly with the director general of the National Trust. But in the interest of balance, I should also point out, as have other Members, that I also hear of circumstances and occasions where the National Trust has very positive experiences with Members.
I know that the National Trust executive team will be alarmed and concerned to hear that they are not seen to be as responsive as they could be to some MPs and their constituents. But it is important to remember, on its 125th anniversary, that, overall, the National Trust is a conservation and heritage success story that we can all be proud of. In 125 years, it has grown from being a project pioneered by three visionaries who owned one building in Suffolk to being the largest member-based heritage organisation in Europe. We should celebrate that success, without ignoring where the trust needs to do better. It has the responsibility to listen and to explain its decisions to its tenants and neighbours. My hon. Friend has made his arguments powerfully and I am sure the trust will be paying close attention. I, too, look forward to hearing its response to his concerns.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Gavin Robinson


  Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Paula Barker


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes ) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
  Stuart Andrew


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Tom Hunt


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew